Preamble

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Milford Haven and Tenby Water Bill [Lords].

Saint Peter's Chapel Stockport Bill [Lords].

Stroud District Water Board, etc. Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Eastern Valleys (Monmouthshire) Joint Sewerage District) Bill.

North-West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Provisional Order Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Jarrow Corporation Bill (by Order),—

Third Reading deferred till To-morrow, at Half-past Seven of the Clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

TAYLORS' HALL, EDINBURGH.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make any further statement about the efforts of the city and Royal Burgh of Edinburgh, to preserve the buildings of Taylors' Hall in the Cowgate?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I am informed that the Corporation recently decided to demolish the buildings and have applied to the Dean of Guild Court for the necessary authority.

Mr. Hannah: Is it not a fact that when in 1923 the city bought these buildings a written agreement was made with the Ancient Monuments Board that they would be preserved, and not demolished?

Mr. Colville: I cannot say that I have any knowledge of that.

BASKING SHARKS.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make regarding communications he has had with the Clyde Fishermen's Association regarding the basking sharp menace in the Clyde; and what consequential steps he has in view towards combating the menace caused by such sharks?

Mr. Colville: I am unable to trace any recent communication on this subject from the Clyde Fishermen's Association. The last letter received was dated October, 1937. The instructions to the Fishery Board's cruisers mentioned in the answer given on 23rd May to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) remain in force; and according to my most recent report the commercial vessel engaged in shark hunting has been at sea daily on the outlook for sharks during the last 10 days.

Mr. Gibson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that since the date of the last question and answer on this subject the menace of basking sharks has become much more obvious and much more dangerous all round the coasts of


the Firth of Clyde and the West of Scotland and Northern Ireland, and what steps is he taking to preserve the safety of those who have to use the sea as a means of earning a livelihood?

Mr. Colville: I have explained that the fishery cruisers have been given certain instructions as to dealing with these sharks and if the hon. and learned Member has any further information as to the whereabouts of the sharks I shall be glad to have it.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman supplement the present ship which is chasing the sharks with a few tanks for the land sharks?

TIMBER HOUSES.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the erection of timber houses in Scotland is being held up for lack of timber, much of which is imported from Canada; and what steps he proposes to take to facilitate the importation of such timber and to expedite the erection of houses in Scotland?

Mr. Colville: I have made inquiries and I understand that the building of timber houses in Scotland is not being held up by any general shortage of timber supplies.

Mr. Gibson: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the fact that the building of 100 timber houses in Greenock has been held up because it is alleged that a cargo of timber bought from Canada was held up, and will he look into the matter?

Mr. Colville: I have had information about the Greenock case and am told that there have been some site difficulties, and that consequently certain orders were delayed, but I understand that the timber has now arrived.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State tell us whether wooden houses are a success in Scotland?

Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir. In some cases they have been proved to be very successful.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken to expedite the erection of these timber houses?

Mr. Colville: I could not, within the compass of an answer to a question, say all that is being done, but a good deal of effort is being devoted at the present time to the building of these houses.

Mr. Gibson: Is it the case that there is such a great lack of houses that in many places, including Greenock, people are only too anxious to get timber houses?

Mr. Colville: That is true.

GRASS LAND (PLOUGHING-UP GRANT).

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether farmers who, desiring to improve their land in a time of emergency, ploughed up poor permanent grass this year before the policy of the ploughing subsidy was announced, will be enabled to receive this assistance?

Mr. Colville: My hon. Friend will remember that when the scheme for assisting the ploughing up of old grass land was announced on 3rd May it was explained that it was to apply to a programme of summer ploughing undertaken after that date. In the circumstances I regret that I can hold out no hope of grant being paid in respect of land ploughed up before the announcement was made.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate what response has been made already by farmers under this scheme?

Mr. Colville: Not without notice.

WHITE FISH (PRICE).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the average price received by the producer of white fish in Aberdeen in the month of April this year was only 1.87d. per pound; that the prices obtained are affected by, among other factors, the practice of sharing among fish merchants and by the practice of allowing foreign quotas to be imported in the form of fillets, thus doubling the value thereof; that the prices are leading to laying up of vessels and hardship to crews in increasing numbers; and whether the White Fish Commission has submitted any proposals to him for the betterment of the industry which they are charged to supervise?

Mr. Colville: The price of white fish landed at Aberdeen during April was approximately as stated in the question. In neither of the factors referred to by the hon. Member has there been any recent change and the depression of prices has probably been due to heavy landings generally and to seasonal deterioration in the quality of the fish. I am at present considering, in consultation with the other Departments concerned, whether some arrangements can be made by which fish imported in filleted form will be computed for quota purposes at the equivalent weight of whole fish. I regret that the depression, as is not unusual in summer, resulted in the laying-up of a number of trawlers; some of these, however, are undergoing overhaul. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer on this point given on nth May by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson).

Mr. Garro Jones: While sharing the sparse consolation to be found in the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him what he proposes to do to increase the tempo of operations of the White Fish Commission; and is he further aware that the statement that there has been no change in the conditions was not founded on fact in that new proposals for laying-up on an unprecedented scale are now before the industry?

Mr. Colville: If the hon. Member reads my answer he will see that I said that two factors have not altered, the factors being those mentioned in his question which, in his view, might conduce to the laying-up of ships.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain away the fact that fish landed at Aberdeen quay is being sold at less than 2d. per lb. while in the retail shops the price is 10d. and 1s., and even more per lb.?

Mr. Colville: I am advised that such sharing as exists is on a limited scale and does not eliminate competition among rival groups of individual buyers.

Mr. Garro Jones: Who advised the right hon. Gentleman of that? May I have information on that point, because that is contrary to all well informed and impartial opinion?

Sir Douglas Thomson: Is it not the case that there is a great deal of sharing in the Aberdeen market?

Mr. Colville: I shall be glad to look into any information which my hon. Friend or the hon. Member cares to give me, but the sources of information which are normally open to me have advised me in the sense stated.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can my right hon. Friend say how far the price quoted in the question falls short of an economic price?

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is yet in a position to state the date and place when the next Imperial Conference will be held?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): No arrangement has yet been made regarding the date of the next Imperial Conference.

Mr. Day: Are any negotiations going forward to fix a date?

Sir T. Inskip: The hon. Member will realise that it is a comparatively short time only since the last Imperial Conference was held.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

STATISTICS.

Mr. Dunn: asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the average output per person employed in the Yorkshire coalfield each year from 1920 to the year 1938; how many persons were employed; and the average wages paid per person during the same period?
(2) The number of mines engaged in the production of coal, together with the numbers of persons employed in the Yorkshire coalfield, above and below ground, during the years 1920 to 1938; and further, the comparable figures for the whole British coalfield for the same periods above-mentioned.

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): As the replies involve a number of figures, I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

1. Yorkshire, 1920–38.


Year.
Average Number of Wage-earners employed.
Average Output of Saleable Coal per Wage-earner.
Average Annual Wages per Wage-earner.


Cash.
Value of Allowances in Kind.






Tons.
£
£
s.
d.


1920
…
…
172,609
214
215
Not available


1922
…
…
178,343
236
Not available


1923
…
…
187,421
248


1924
…
…
191,712
243


1925
…
…
188,272
240


1927
…
…
184,922
253
125
4
2
11


1928
…
…
172,499
254
113
3
14
4


1929
…
…
169,246
278
119
3
14
2


1930
…
…
168,111
269
115
3
12
10


1931
…
…
160,776
257
109
3
11
10


1932
…
…
151,931
257
107
3
12
7


1933
…
…
141,116
272
109
3
9
7


1934
…
…
139,868
293
114
3
7
11


1935
…
…
136,961
304
118
3
7
7


1936
…
…
137,007
319
135
3
12
1


1937
…
…
139,741
333
150
3
18
5


1938
…
…
141,101
308
151
4
3
0


NOTES.


(1)The years 1921 and 1926 have been omitted, as they were affected by prolonged national disputes.


(2)Prior to 1925 the particulars of Persons Employed relate to those ordinarily employed, and subsequently to the average number of Persons on Colliery Books, based upon four selected dates. The figures for the years 1920 –1923 include Clerks and Salaried Persons which cannot be separately distinguished.

2. Number of Coal Mines at work, and the number of Persons Employed above and below ground in Great Britain and Yorkshire in the years 1920 to 1938.


Year.
 Great Britain.
Yorkshire.


Number of Coal Mines at work during the year.
Number of Persons Employed.
Number of Coal Mines at work during the year.
Number of Persons Employed.


Below-ground.
Above-ground (including Clerks and Salaried Persons).
Total.
Below-Ground.
Above-ground(including Clerks and Salaried Persons).
Total.


1920
2,677
972,838
253,091
1,225,929
298
134,623
37,986
172,609


1921
2,887
907,335
223,346
1,130,681
332
139,706
35,930
175,636


1922
2,762
921,737
226,732
1,148,469
303
142,481
35,862
178,343


1923
2,747
966,136
237,154
1,203,290
296
149,722
37,699
187,421


1924
2,718
966,158
247,566
1,213,724
290
155,014
40,312
195,326


1925
2,586
878,679
223,763
1,102,442
276
152,892
39,064
191,956


1926
2,712
889,977
225,663
1,115,640
288
154,539
39,160
193,699


1927
2,719
814,078
209,808
1,023,886
290
150,973
37,765
188,738


1928
2,398
744,959
194,029
938,988
252
140,750
35,439
176,189


1929
2,273
762,338
194,336
956,674
237
138,428
34,317
172,745


1930
2,186
739,056
192,320
931,376
226
137,331
34,278
171,609


1931
2,096
685,980
181,884
867,864
217
130,864
33,439
164,303


1932
2,017
645,539
173,785
819,324
210
123,312
32,118
155,430


1933
1,986
618,786
170,305
789,091
207
113,679
30,827
144,506


1934
1,982
616,841
171,369
788,210
209
112,318
30,942
143,260


1935
1,930
600,336
169,138
769,474
210
109,766
30,544
140,310


1936
1,930
597,197
169,894
767,091
205
109,687
30,702
140,389


1937
1,964
616,677
175,061
791,738
202
111,619
31,614
143,233


1938
1,976
614,478
176,410
790,888
203
112,377
32,277
144,654


NOTES.


 (1)Prior to 1925 the particulars of Persons Employed relate to those ordinarily employed, and subsequently to the average number of Persons on Colliery Books, based upon four selected dates.


(2)In the years 1921 and 1926, there were protracted disputes. The figures for the year 1926 relate to the 13th March.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons employed, including clerks and salaried persons, and output of coal in each of the districts of the mining industry in Great Britain in 1938?

Average Number of Persons Employed (including clerks and salaried persons)
and Output of Saleable Coal at Coal Mines in each District of Great Britain in the year
1938.


District.
Number of Persons Employed.
Output of Saleable Coal.


England and Wales.

Tons


1
Northumberland
…
…
45,600
13,310,518


2
Durham
…
…
115,520
31,414,973


3
Cumberland and Westmorland
…
…
6,611
1,568,175


4
Lancashire and Cheshire
…
…
58,168
14,285,082


5
Yorkshire, South
…
…
100,204
30,567,734


6
Yorkshire, West
…
…
44,450
11,806,551


7
Nottinghamshire
…
…
46,477
15,468,357


8
Derbyshire, North
…
…
42,430
13,014,015


9
Derbyshire, South
…
…
3,193
842,976


10
Staffordshire, North
…
…
23,796
6,940,895


11
Cannock Chase
…
…
20,213
5,079,494


12
Staffordshire, South, and Worcestershire
…
…
4,342
1,395,583


13
Leicestershire
…
…
9,005
2,867,094


14,
Warwickshire
…
…
17,032
5,585,213


15
Shropshire
…
…
2,522
656,684


16
Forest of Dean
…
…
4,990
1,349,540


17
Somersetshire
…
…
3,347
738,197


18
Bristol
…
…
327
68,576


19
Kent
…
…
6,781
1,771,104


20
South Wales and Monmouthshire
…
…
135,970
35,292,748


21
North Wales
…
…
9,868
2,712,299



Total
…
…
700,886
196,735,808


Scotland.





22.
Fife, Clackmannan, Kinross and Sutherland
…
23,030
8,287,810


23
Lothians (Mid and East) and Peebles
…
…
13,032
4,441,672


24
Lanarkshire, West Lothian, Stirling, Renfrew and Dumbarton.
41,641
13,056,757


25
Ayrshire, Dumfries and Argyll
…
…
12,299
4,493,261



Total
…
…
90,002
30,279,500



GREAT BRITAIN
…
…
790,888
227,015,308

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the average number of persons employed in the coalmines of Nottinghamshire, and the number of conveyors and coal-cutting machines in operation, for each of the years 1929 to 1938;
(2) the total amount of coal mined in Nottinghamshire, and the amount of coal

Mr. Lloyd: As the reply involves a statistical statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

mined by machinery, for each of the 10 years from 1929 to 1938?

Mr. Lloyd: With the hon. Member's permission, I will answer these questions in the form of a statistical table which I will circulate in the Official Report.

Following is the information:

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE, 1929–1938.


Year.
Average Number of Persons Employed (including Clerks and Salaried Persons).
Number of Coal-cutting Machines in use.
Number of Conveyors in use.
Output of Saleable Coal.
Quantity of Coal cut by Machinery.



Tons.
Tons.


1929
…
…
52,702
338
147
14,738,255
3,937,974


1930
…
…
52,393
346
203
14,576,000
4,600,381


1931
…
…
51,307
313
221
14,483,415
5,045,872


1932
…
…
49,499
309
236
13,549,964
5,141,089


1933
…
…
46,969
336
339
13,638,408
7,137,137


1934
…
…
46,852
349
400
14,308,552
8,804,415


1935
…
…
45,923
356
477
14,015,308
9,449,016


1936
…
…
45,538
345
473
15,059,284
10,701,496


1937
…
…
45,579
352
512
16,400,410
11,787,077


1938
…
…
46,477
340
528
15,468,357
10,839,245

ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines in view of the fact that the Agreement made in December last between the Governments of Great Britain and France stipulated that at least 49.5 per cent. of the normal imports of coal by France should be purchased from this country, how does he account for the imports this year being far below the agreed level, and for April last only 21.5 per cent.; and what steps does he propose to take to effect an improvement?

Mr. Lloyd: The stipulated percentage to which the hon. Member refers does not apply to total imports, as certain classes of coal, such as that for bunkers and metallurgical purposes, are excluded from the normal quota to which the Agreement applies. I am not yet in possession of the information which would enable me to say whether, during the current year, the share of the trade to which we are entitled has been secured. The hon. Member will, however, appreciate that performance under the Agreement cannot be calculated by reference to a portion only of the year.

Mr. Jenkins: May I ask the Minister whether it is or is not a fact that in the Agreement of 10th December last the French did undertake to allow Britain 49.5 per cent. of the normal quota and to limit the licences issued for the importation of coal from Holland, Germany and Poland, and also to wipe out the arrears that had accrued as a result of the timber and coal barter arrangement of 1934, and whether, despite those

undertakings, there was during the first quarter of this year as compared with the first quarter of last year a substantial reduction in the amount of coal imported from this country?

Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate the hon. Member's anxiety. It is true that there have been difficulties with regard to the coal Agreement with France, but I understand that arrangements have been made whereby it is hoped that the position will improve. I am not in a position at the moment to say definitely whether the Agreement has had the results we desire, because we are at present awaiting the official French figures which are necessary to enable us to say whether or not the Agreement has been fulfilled.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to give me a definite answer?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I cannot give a definite date.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give particulars of the number of workmen certified as disabled from the various scheduled industrial diseases in coal mines in 1938; and if he will indicate whether the incidence of any of these diseases reveals an increase on previous years, and the reasons for such increase?

Mr. Lloyd: I regret that this information is not available at present, but the returns will be completed in a few weeks, and I will send the information to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the memorandum drawn up in South Africa upon closer co-operation between the Union territories and the High Commission territories is now in the hands of His Majesty's Government and of the South African Government; and whether it is proposed to publish this memorandum at an early date?

Sir T. Inskip: The Joint Advisory Conference established in pursuance of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and General Hertzog on 29th March of last year have submitted a first report dealing with certain matters affecting the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland. The report will be considered in consultation with the Union Government, but I cannot say at present whether it will be published.

Mr. Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider placing a copy in the Library of the House?

Sir T. Inskip: I will consider that.

Mr. Hannah: Is not publication extraordinarily desirable?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (DOMINION RECRUITS).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what recent conversations have taken place between His Majesty's Government in Great Britain and the Governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa for the purpose of establishing more satisfactory methods for removing obstacles that at present exist for those persons desiring to enlist in the Royal Navy; and what recent improvements have been made?

Sir T. Inskip: I am not aware of any such obstacles as are indicated by the hon. Member, but if he will send me particulars of the matters which he has in mind, I shall be very glad to have them examined in the light of the requirements of the Dominion Governments.

Mr. Day: Is it not a fact that many men in Newfoundland who desire to join the Navy have great difficulty in getting themselves accepted?

Sir T. Inskip: I am not aware of any difficulty except that they are at some distance from these shores.

Mr. Day: Does not the examination take up a lot of time?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (LASCARS).

Mr. Windsor: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of lascar seamen now employed in British ships; and what increase in the number has taken place since 1930?
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The number of lascars employed at some time during 1938 on sea-trading vessels registered at ports in the United Kingdom was 50,700, representing a decrease of 5,700 compared with 1930. Particulars for 1939 are not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR RISKS (COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Trade, when it is pro posed to introduce the Bill dealing with war insurance?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Hands-worth (Commander Locker-Lampson).

Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what was the effect of that reply?

Mr. Stanley: The effect was that the Bill would be introduced as soon as possible.

Mr. Bellenger: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more specific? Does he realise that it is now nearly two months since this scheme was first introduced, and that the agreement with the underwriters depends upon the sanction of this House; and does he not think that the decision is taking a long time?

Mr. Stanley: I quite appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire, which is shared by the rest of us, that the legislation should be introduced at the earliest possible moment, but this is a very complicated matter, and hon. Members will be aware that there have been many calls in the last few weeks upon those who are responsible for the drafting of legislation.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the policy of the Government on the question of compensation in respect to premises which may be damaged in the event of hostilities; and, if not, when he expects to be able to make such a statement?

Mr. Wood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the anxiety of factory and property owners as a result of the lack of precision with regard to Government policy in the matter of insurance against war risks; and when he expects to be in a position to give a more precise statement of Government policy with regard to this matter?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I would refer to the statements which I have already made on this subject. The policy of the Government was clearly set out, in particular, in my statement of 31st January, 1939.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (EXCHANGE OF MATERIALS).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the exchange of goods by barter between the United Kingdom and the United States of America?

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any progress has been made with the proposals for the exchange of tin and rubber by barter for cotton from the United States; and whether it is still proposed to proceed with this transaction?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer to the reply which I gave to questions by the hon. Members for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) and Oldham (Mr. H. Kerr) on 23rdMay.

Mr. Shinwell: If these exchanges are effective, could they be undertaken without the intervention of middlemen and to the exclusion of commissions?

Mr. Stanley: I shall have to leave that to the course of the negotiations.

Mr. George Griffiths: Could we not exchange Mr. Chamberlain for Mr. Roosevelt?

Mr. Stanley: I am always ready to consider any exchange which is to the mutual advantage of both parties.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not this consideration one which the right hon. Gentleman regards as one of the main features of the arrangement?

Mr. Stanley: This is a very complicated matter, and I should not exclude the possibility that it would be necessary to go through with these matters.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an impression in business circles that the Government do not intend to go on with this proposal?

Mr. Stanley: If that is the impression, it is entirely unfounded.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY (SCRAP).

Mr. Stokes: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the scrap-iron merchants in this country, who are refraining for patriotic reasons from exporting scrap which, in many cases is their normal business, are being penalised by the British steel ring, who are buying scrap-steel at a much higher price from foreigners than they will agree to pay their own countrymen for similar material; and whether he approves of the subsidy paid to the steel industry to help in its recovery being used in this way rather than being spent in this country, in which case the Exchequer would benefit by a decrease in unemployment?

Mr. Stanley: There is an arrangement between the British Iron and Steel Federation and the Scrap Merchants' Federation, under which the latter have agreed to offer the former all available scrap in this country at a price which is settled between the two bodies. Under this arrangement material is sold for export only when it is not required for use in this country. In spite of this arrangement, home supplies of scrap have recently proved insufficient, and I understand that it has been necessary to negotiate purchases abroad. I am not aware of the price paid for imported scrap, or that the steel industry is receiving a subsidy.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister not aware that, under this arrangement between the steel federation and the scrap merchant, the British Iron and Steel Federation have actually suspended some of the contracts with some of the scrap merchants in this country and are purchasing scrap at 50 per cent. above the home price?

Mr. Stanley: I am certainly not aware that the Iron and Steel Federation have suspended contracts with the scrap merchants in this country.

Mr. Stokes: If I send the right hon. Gentleman full particulars will he look into them?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept the possibility of allowing local authorities to organise the collection of scrap, as they can produce enormous amounts at very reasonable prices?

Mr. R. Gibson: Are the old British ships that are being sold abroad being used as scrap?

FISHING INDUSTRY (LOST TRAWLERS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of trawlers in the fishing industry which were lost in the last year; the number of such vessels which were replaced; and whether all these vessels were constructed in British shipyards?

Mr. Stanley: The number of trawlers lost by casualty during 1938 was 20. I regret that the remaining information asked for could only be obtained by special inquiry of the owners of the trawlers which were lost.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of trawlers lost through old age and wear and tear is far in excess of the figure which he has just given and that that diminution of the fleet is having very serious consequences upon our Defence requirements?

Mr. Stanley: I was asked to deal with a question of trawlers lost, and I presumed that it meant, in the normal parlance, trawlers lost by casualty.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TERRITORIAL RECRUITS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men that have offered their services to the Territorial Army for the three months ended to the last convenient date, and the intake of recruits during this period; and comparable figures for the corresponding period of 1937 and 1938?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The number of applications for enlistment into the Territorial Army during the period 1st February to 30th April, 1939, was approximately 166,000. Comparable figures for 1937 and 1938 are not available. The numbers of recruits finally approved for the Territorial Army during the three months ended 30th April, 1937, and the corresponding periods in 1938 and 1939, were 18,220, 24,254 and 62,965, respectively.

Mr. Day: Does the Minister consider that that is very satisfactory?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. R. Gibson: Has the right hon. Gentleman included Scotland in those figures?

PALESTINE OPERATIONS (MEDAL).

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided to issue a medal to those concerned in the operations in Palestine; and, if so, what are the conditions or qualifications on which it will be issued?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I hope that a decision will be reached very shortly.

COMPLETED TERRITORIAL ESTABLISHMENTS.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, having in view the fact that Lincolnshire in England, Fife in Scotland, and Flint in Wales, are the first counties to complete their unit establishments of the Territorial Army, he will make any suitable recognition to the county authorities concerned?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Information received since I answered my hon. and gallant Friend on 23rd May last now indicates that Westmorland was, in fact, the first


county in England to complete its increased establishment, the date being 6th May. Congratulations have been sent to all units which have reached their full strength.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Is it not a fact that Westmorland has not a separate Territorial Association, but is joined with Cumberland?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Nothing can detract from the enthusiasm of Lincolnshire.

TERRITORIAL OFFICERS.

Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the difficulties in which Territorial units are being put owing to the delay, sometimes of months, in getting new officers of whom the units themselves have approved gazetted by the War Office; and whether he will speed up the machinery in order that the thousands of new men may have their proper establishment of officers?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The increase in the establishment of the Territorial Army involves some 9,000 appointments to commissions, and a large number of recommendations is being received daily. Every endeavour is being made to accelerate their examination, and officers commanding units are permitted, as a temporary measure, to authorise eligible candidates to join and attend drills and annual training, before they are gazetted. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular cases of delay in mind and will send me the necessary details, I will gladly took into them.

TERRITORIAL ADJUTANTS (PAY).

Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can yet make an announcement on the pay of Territorial adjutants in view of the fact that at present Territorials who are employed as full-time adjutants receive only about half the emoluments of Regulars employed as full-time Territorial adjutants, in spite of the fact that the former are not qualifying for pensions?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: With effect from 1st June, a Territorial officer employed as adjutant in a Territorial unit will receive the full pay and allowances of his rank in the Territorial Army, not exceeding

that of captain, and the rate of additional pay drawn by a Regular officer similarly employed.

TERRITORIALS (REGULAR ARMY SERVICE).

Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of officers and non-commissioned officers being appealed for from the Territorial Army as full-time instructors for the Regular Army, and, as the Regular Army, when convenient, ask the Territorial Army for their best non-commissioned officers, he will reconsider the question of recognising the rank earned by Territorials who are compelled to serve with the Regular Army during their Militia service?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As regards the first part of the question no separate quotas have been fixed for the Territorial Army or the other sources from which instructors may be found. As regards the second part, the matter is not one which at present arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FOREST PARKS (CAMPS).

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether any progress has been made in connection with the establishment of a national forest park in North Wales?

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): Two camps, fully equipped as regards water supply and sanitation, will be opened this season. One camp is near Beddgelert and the other is in the Llugwy Valley, near Bettws-y-Coed. Both camps will be suitable for either caravans or light camping, and that at Beddgelert will be provided with a special building for shelter and recreation. The Commissioners have also been in touch with the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Associations, and it is expected that each of these organisations will open a camp in the area this year.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for his answer I would like to ask whether the Commissioners propose to extend these camps to other counties, and particularly to Denbigh where they have very suitable sites?

Sir G. Courthope: I cannot give any definite assurance with regard to any particular county but it is the policy of the Commissioners, as our forests develop and become suitable, to extend the national forest parks not only by extending existing ones but by creating new ones.

Mr. Ede: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider applications from reputable juvenile organisations other than boy scouts and girl guides?

Sir G. Courthope: Oh, certainly.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a youth organisation in Wales which held its national festival in my constituency last week, and which is far more representative of the youth of Wales than those he referred to; and will he consult them?

Sir G. Courthope: I believe that they are already in communication with me.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD ACCIDENTS (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister of Transport whether any steps are in contemplation to give effect to the proposals in relation to road accidents of the Select Committee of the House of Lords?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): Substantial progress has been made with the detailed examination of the numerous and far-reaching proposals made by the Select Committee. Until that examination is completed, I am unable to give particulars of what action it may be necessary to take.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman in a position to say how long he estimates the Government examination will take, and how long after their examination is concluded it will take them to produce the proposals?

Captain Hudson: I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement this Session, but there are over 200 recommendations and some of them will need legislation.

Mr. Leach: Can we hope that the Ministry will down about 90 per cent. of them?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY TRAINING.

CALLING UP ARRANGEMENTS.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the arrangements for the calling up of men under the military training scheme?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I have given to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) on 16th May and to the hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) and Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 25th May, copies of which I am sending him. Some modification may be necessary in the calling up arrangements as announced on 16th May, as the men for the air defence of Great Britain are required in three-monthly groups, while men for the Field Army are required in two-monthly groups. The effect of this on the calling up arrangements will be that while in general men will be called up for training at intervals of two months, approximately half the September group will have their calling-up notices postponed to October, and half the March group to April. The first group of men to be called up will consist of about 34,000, and they will receive their calling-up notices on or about Saturday, 1st July, requiring them to report to their units a fortnight later.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement on the contractual obligations of the men who will be called up?

Mr. Brown: That is a matter of business, but surely the answer is "Yes."

Mr. Shinwell: Could the right hon. Gentleman be more specific on that point, because the matter is of great concern to many people?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, and that is quite understood by His Majesty's Government. The House can be assured that there will be no delay.

Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement later on as to the number rejected on physical grounds?

Mr. Brown: The medical arrangements do not begin until Thursday.

MEDICAL EXAMINATION.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with the medical inspection of militiamen preparatory to training, he will take into consideration the desirability that it should include an X-ray examination of the chest?

Mr. E. Brown: The arrangements for medical examination include provision for the services of expert radiologists in all cases in which this is considered by the medical boards to be desirable in order to establish a man's fitness for service. In addition, information in the possession of the tuberculosis officer of the local authority will be available.

Mr. Poole: Would it be possible for a man who has failed in his medical examination for the Territorial Army to be subsequently passed for the Militia?

Mr. Brown: I could not answer that hypothetical question.

Mr. Poole: If a man has made application to join the Territorial Army before the required date, and has been unsuccessful in passing the medical examination by reason of defective eyesight or some such defect, what will be his position then?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

GERMAN CONSUL, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Prime Minister whether he has completed his inquiry into the matter of allegations made at the Manchester assizes on the 19th May to the effect that the German consul in Liverpool had, at an earlier date, assisted a man named Joseph Kelly to make contacts with foreign agents on the Continent to whom he sold plans of the Government factory at Euxton, Lancashire; what are the results of the inquiry; how far was the German consul in Liverpool and/or his staff implicated; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a continuation or recurrence of such activities on the part of this consul and/or his staff?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): If the hon. Member will repeat his question in two or three days' time, I hope to be able to give him a reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION.

LORD HANKEY.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the reasons why Lord Hankey has been appointed a member of the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations in succession to Lords Hailey and Lugard; and what experience he has had of Colonial administration?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The constitution of the Permanent Mandates Commission provides that members should be appointed for their personal merits and competence. It was on the grounds of Lord Hankey's exceptional administrative experience and acknowledged qualities that his appointment was proposed at the recent Council by the Rapporteur for Mandates Questions, the representative of Latvia, and approved by the Council.

Mr. Mander: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the latter part of the question?

Mr. Butler: There is no specific requirement that members of the Permanent Mandates Commission should have Colonial experience, and, in fact, several of them have not that experience.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer that part of the question? He has not answered it.

Mr. Butler: I should have thought that, in view of Lord Hankey's record, his knowledge of Colonial and other administration must be very considerable.

Mr. Mander: While appreciating Lord Hankey's long and distinguished public service, may I ask whether it has not in fact been the practice to appoint as members of this body experts with know ledge of native Colonial administration, and whether there was no one in the Civil Service in this country who possessed that knowledge?

Mr. Butler: As I have already said, there is no requirement that members of the Permanent Mandates Commission should have Colonial experience, and not all the present members of the Commission possess that experience.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that most of the important members of


the Commission have had such experience, is it not very unfortunate that His Majesty's Government should depart from that practice, which has no doubt contributed largely to the great authority of the Mandates Commission?

PALESTINE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister the date when the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations will be meeting to consider the British Government's new White Paper proposals with regard to Palestine?

Mr. Butler: The next ordinary session of the Permanent Mandates Commission will begin in Geneva on 8th June.

Mr. Mander: Will the Colonial Secretary be present himself in order to explain the British proposals?

Mr. Butter: That is a question which should be put to my right hon. Friend, but I believe he does contemplate going.

Mr. Mander: Will the Government take notice of and fall in with any suggestion and proposals that are made by the Mandates Commission after they have considered the whole question?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK (BACTERIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION).

Mr. Pearson: asked the Minister of Health whether he will request local government authorities to obtain a standard frequency of milk samples for bacteriological analysis so that possible existence of tubercle bacilli in milk may be effectively traced, and in order to supplement the detection of tuberculosis-infected animals by the veterinary staff of the Ministry of Agriculture?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): While my right hon. Friend fully appreciates the importance of the examination of milk for tubercle bacilli, and his Department draws the attention of local authorities to the matter in appropriate cases, the number of samples which it is desirable to take must vary with circumstances, and, on the information before him, my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be practicable or useful to enjoin a standard figure upon all authorities.

Mr. Pearson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of samples taken

for analysis is totally inadequate in some county areas?

Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend is continually drawing the attention of local authorities to the importance of taking numerous tests. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind where that is not being done, I shall be very happy to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE (EVACUATION).

Mr. Brooke: asked the Minister of Health whether any cripples or invalids, other than blind people and expectant mothers, are to be regarded as coming within the priority class of evacuees; and, if not, whether he can give definite public guidance to such persons as to their best and safest course in the event of an emergency?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir. Adult cripples, so far as their removal is feasible, are included among the priority classes for the purposes of the Government evacuation scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum would be required to increase the weekly amount of the old age pension to each recipient in Scotland by 10s.; and how many old age pensioners would benefit thereby?

Sir J. Simon: The additional cost involved in increasing by 10s. a week the pension of old age pensioners in Scotland, including contributory pensioners aged 65 to 70 and widow pensioners of the same age, would be nearly £8,000,000 per annum. Approximately 300,000 such old age pensioners would benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANK OF ENGLAND.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the large borrowing operations which will have to be undertaken by His Majesty's Government in the future, with its con sequential effect on credit facilities, he has any proposals for more direct control of the Bank of England and the removal of the anomalous position of the central bank being allowed to remain in the hands of private financial interests?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir. The Government do not accept the implications in


the hon. Member's question, and have no intention of putting forward any such proposals as those referred to.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask the Prime Minister why he does not make the great Mr. Montagu Norman Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUBSIDIES.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of subsidies paid to each industry since 1931, including the recently announced amount to be paid to agriculture, and to what extent the subsidies paid annually to agriculture are less than the total annual wages costs of that industry?

Sir J. Simon: For the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary yesterday to the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring). In answer to the second part of the question, I am informed that sufficient information is not available as to the actual wages of the various classes of regular and seasonal workers and the periods of employment of seasonal workers to enable any reliable estimate to be made of the total annual wages costs of the industry. Moreover, allowance would have to be made for the value of the labour of the farmer and his family.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FUND.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that it is in the national interest to permit the National Fund to remain in the absolute control of a private banking institution until the assets have accumulated sufficiently to discharge the National Debt; and whether he will take steps to amend the Trust Deed?

Sir J. Simon: It was the express intention of the anonymous donor of this fund that it should remain in the hands of private trustees for accumulation. His offer was gratefully accepted by the Government of the day on that condition, and His Majesty's Government are not prepared to act as suggested in the second part of the question.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the accumulation of tremendous funds of this sort until they

reach the magnitude of the National Debt must be against the public interest, particularly when they are administered by private firms only; and will he not take some steps to do what he has done in the case of the other two funds of this nature, and have some sort of Government control over the investment of these funds?

Sir J. Simon: My understanding of the matter is that this considerable donation was offered by the gentleman in question on condition that it was held by trustees. I suppose that no one would have desired that his offer should be refused, but I hardly think it is possible first to accept his offer and then to disregard this condition.

Mr. Bellenger: Would the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer on the special point about the public interest? Does he think that the accumulation of these large funds in the hands of private bankers is in the public interest?

Sir J. Simon: It does not seem to me that any question of the public interest arises. I can conceive that in some distant future the issue might arise, but this is not a very ancient fund, and I do not think we should be justified in disregarding this condition.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR CAR TAXATION.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates will be the loss to the revenue from decline in National Defence Contributions and Income Tax payments from dealers in second-hand motor cars the capital value of whose motor cars has been reduced by £3,000,000 in consequence of the proposal to raise the horse-power tax to 25s.

Sir J. Simon: The loss which the hon. Member anticipates is a hypothetical one, based upon an assumption which I am unable to accept.

Mr. Lipson: Did not the right hon. Gentleman take this factor into consideration in making his proposals, and is he able to tell the House what he estimates will be the loss as a result of it?

Sir J. Simon: I assure the hon. Member that all relevant considerations were taken into account in estimating the yield of the tax. It is not infrequently the case that, when a new tax is first disclosed,


there is in certain quarters a fear that loss will be incurred, but that fear is generally exaggerated.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR DUTY.

Mr. Denville: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the basis of extraction of sugar on which the new scale of Customs Duty on raw sugars is based, and in particular what is the normal yield in good refining practice as estimated by His Majesty's customs of sugar and molasses from a cwt. of raw sugar polarising exceeding 96 degrees and not exceeding 97 degrees, on which duty is chargeable, at the full rate, of 10s. 5.4d., and what would be the drawback payable on such sugar and molasses when exported; and what is, in the case of such sugar, the amount allowed per cwt. to give effect to the principle that the refiner should be recouped for expenses involved in payment of duty on his raw material?

Sir J. Simon: As the answer is necessarily technical and elaborate, and requires study for its complete comprehension, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The basis of the new full rates of Customs duty on raw sugar is the scale contained in the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1901, and repeated in the Sixth Schedule to the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Act, 1936, representing the estimated yield of refined sugar extractable in ordinary refining practice from raw sugar at the various degrees of polarisation, including sugar at 96–97 degrees of polarisation. Drawback on the exportation of sugar refined from raw sugar polarising at 96–97 degrees on which duty was paid at the new full rate, is payable at the rate of 11s. 8d. per cwt., and on the exportation of molasses produced in the refining of such sugar, at rates varying from 2s. 9½d. to 8s. 9d. per cwt. according to the sweetening content of the molasses. The amount allowed in the 1901 scale to give effect to the principle that the refiner should be recouped for expenses involved in the payment of duty on his raw material cannot be stated, as the detailed calculations on which that scale was based are not now available.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELGIN MARBLES (UNAUTHORISED CLEANING).

Mr. Mander: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the present position with reference to the cleaning and re-erection of the Elgin marbles in the British Museum?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave on 18th and 26th May to the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham) and the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher).

Mr. Mander: Would it be correct to assume that the resignations of two important officials are connected with this unauthorised cleaning, and that disciplinary action was taken?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir, the trustees did take disciplinary action.

Mr. Cocks: Is it not time that these marbles were returned to Athens?

Oral Answers to Questions — SILICOSIS.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Pay master-General, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he can give any information on the experiments carried out by mining engineers in Canada into the prevention of silicosis by the disposal of quantities of metallic aluminium powder in dust clouds in mines; and whether, in view of the success claimed for this method of prevention, he will have similar experiments conducted in this country?

The Paymaster-General (Earl Winter-ton): The special committee advising the Medical Research Council on industrial pulmonary diseases is maintaining close contact with the Canadian investigators of this method, and some related experiments are being made here under the committe's direction.

Mr. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these investigations will be completed?

Earl Winterton: No, Sir. Experiments are still being carried out, and it is proposed to send a research worker to Canada.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the conclusions of the investigators in this country have to be published?

Earl Winterton: I shall have to have notice of that question, but I imagine the answer is, certainly yes.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. Boothby: I desire to make a brief personal statement. Yesterday the hon. and gallant Member for the Wycombe Division of Buckinghamshire (Sir A. Knox) put the following question to the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department:
Whether, under the scheme of export credits to China, purchases and sales were tendered for openly by existing British trading interests in Great Britain and China; and, if not, what method was adopted and for what reason?
The Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department replied:
I am not quite clear as to what transactions my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The question of the method of purchase is primarily a matter for the Chinese Government.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Wycombe Division then put a supplementary. He said:
Is there any truth in the rumour that the Export Credits Department advised the Chinese Advisory Committee to deal entirely with the organisation called Trade Facilities, Limited, of which the chairman is Mr. Serge Karlinski: and why were the interests of British traders in China, who have recently been hard hit, disregarded? 
To that supplementary, my right hon. Friend replied:
The hon. and gallant Member was good enough to send me a memorandum which formed the basis of his question, and I have looked into it and find that most of the statements are entirely unfounded and a large number are deliberate misrepresentations."—[Official Report, 5th June, 1939; col. 15, Vol. 348.]
The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe was apparently unsatisfied with that answer, and gave notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I am a director of the Industrial Facilities Corporation, of which Mr. Kar1inski is chairman. The hon. and gallant Member was aware of that when he put the question, bue he gave me no notice that he intended to ask it. He gave notice yesterday that he intended to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and, personally, I sincerely hope that he will do so; but, in case he

should think better of it, I desire to assure the House without further delay that there is not the slightest foundation for the imputation cast not only against the company with which I am associated, but also that against the Civil Service which is contained in the supplementary question he thought fit to put.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Let me say a short word of explanation. First of all, I would like to apologise to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) for not having given him notice that I was going to call attention, by a supplementary question, to this company of which he is a director. I did not think that necessary, because I did not intend to make any charge or accusation in any form against that company or its activities. If I had, I would undoubtedly have told the hon. Member, who I knew was a director of the company, that I intended to do so. As regards the paper to which he alluded, I some time ago, a couple of weeks ago, received a representation from a body of traders in Shanghai, complaining that, as regards the £3,000,000 credit to China, they got no part or share in making the purchases or promoting the sales. As they have been very hard hit in China during the recent war and the war that is going on now, I considered it my duty to send the paper to the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade. I accompanied that statement with the following letter:
I am sending you, in confidence, copy of a statement I received from Shanghai. Of course, I have no means of checking the accuracy of it, but it would seem, at all events, that the interests of British merchants in China who have been hard hit by the war might have been considered.
I think you will agree with me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and perhaps the House will agree, that it was my duty as a Member of Parliament to send that statement to the Minister. That is all that I have done.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it permissible for a bunch of robbers to take up the time of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If I understood the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) rightly, his remark was grossly disorderly.

Mr. McGovern: But true.

Mr. Gallacher: May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last was the Member who took the most violent action against British shipping interests in Spain?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Question before the House.

Mr. McGovern: It is a question as to who can get the loot.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister how far it is proposed to proceed to-day in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?

The Prime Minister: It is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to obtain the business up to and including the fifth Order on the Paper. We also desire to consider the Government of India Order and the Committee stage of the Money Resolution for the Civil Defence Bill. Apart from the Unemployment Insurance Bill and the Wheat (Amendment) Bill, the business which I have mentioned is, I think, of a minor character, and will not raise any highly controversial points.

Mr. Greenwood: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Order Paper, he will see that there is a considerable number of Amendments on the first two Orders, some of them points of substance, and on the second Motion after the fifth Order there may be some elucidation required, which may lead to some little debate. It may mean rather a late sitting.

The Prime Minister: I can only say that the House has a very big programme before it this Session, and it is necessary to make some progress. I am hopeful that it may not be a late sitting.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: What Minister will be in charge of the Civil Defence [Money] [No. 2] Resolution?

The Prime Minister: The Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. Benn: Cannot we have the Home Secretary, who is the only Minister, so far as I know, who is able to explain the financial implications?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend will be here.

Mr. Greenwood: While not desiring to be unnecessarily fractious, might I ask whether, in the event of the House taking more time than the Prime Minister expects on the first and second Orders, he will consider postponing the last business to another day if it looks as though it will be very late?

The Prime Minister: I can give no assurance at this stage, but I will see how we get on.

Mr. Thorne: The Prime Minister says that there is a considerable programme before us this Session. Does he mean that this will be the last Session of this Parliament?

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)"—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 125.

Division No. 156.]
AYES.
[3.33 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Boulton, W. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Boyes, H. Laslie
Channon, H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bracken, B.
Chapman, A. (Ruthorglen)


Albery, Sir Irving
Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Brass, Sir W.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Apsley, Lord
Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Colfox, Major W. P.


Assheton, R.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Colville, Rt. Hon. John


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Simon)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)


Balniel, Lord
Bull, B. B.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.


Barrle, Sir C. C.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Cox, H. B. Trever


Baxter, A. Beverley
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Burten, Col. H. W.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Butcher, H. W.
Cross, R. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Crossley, A. C.


Blair, Sir R.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Crowder, J. F. E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Cruddas, Col. B.


Bottom, A. C.
Cary, R. A.
Davison, Sir W. H.




De la Bère, R.
Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rankin, Sir R.


Denville, Alfred
Hunloke, H. P.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Doland, G. F.
Hunter, T.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Donner, P. W.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Read, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Jennings, R.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Duggan, H. J.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merloneth)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Dunglass, Lord
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Ellis, Sir G.
Knox, Major-General, Sir A. W. F.
Rowlands, G.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Latham, Sir P.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Errington, E.
Lees-Jones, J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Fildes, Sir H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Findlay, Sir E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Scott, Lord William


Flaming, E. L.
Levy, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Liddall, W. S.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Furness, S. N.
Lipson, D. L.
Smithers, Sir W.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Lloyd, G. W.
Snadden, W. McN.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Somerset, T.


Goldie, N. B.
McKie, J. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Granville, E. L.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Magnay, T.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Suater, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Tate, Mavis, C.


Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Markham, S. F.
Thomas, J. P. L


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Miteham)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hambro, A. V.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Touche, G. C.


Hammersley, S. S.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Hannah, I. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Harbord, A.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Walface, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Warrender, Sir V.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvle


Hepworth, J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Walls, Sir Sydney


Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Higgs, W. F.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Holdsworth, H.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hopkinson, A.
Patrick, C. M.
Wise, A. R.


Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.
Peake, O.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Petherick, M.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Pilkington, R.



Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Radford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Ede, J. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
John, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Ammon, C. G.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Foot, D. M.
Kirby, B. V.


Banfield, J. W.
Frankel, D.
Kirkwood, D.


Barnes, A. J.
Gallacher, W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Batey, J.
Gardner, B. W.
Lawson, J. J.


Ballenger, F. J.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Leach, W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Lee, F.


Benson, G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Leonard, W.


Bevan, A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Leslie, J. R.


Broad, F. A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Logan, D. G.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, G. A. (Homsworth)
McEntee, V. La T.


Cape, T.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McGovern, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
MacLaren, A.


Cooks, F. S.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Maclean, N.


Collindridge, F.
Hayday, A.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Daggar, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwisk)
Mander, G. le M.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Marshall, F.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hieks, E. G.
Maxton, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Messer, F.


Day. H
Jagger, J.
Montague, F.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)




Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sexton. T. M.
Viant, S. P.


Muff, C.
Shinwell, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Silverman, S. S.
Watson, W. McL.


Owen, Major G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's
Welsh, J. C.


Paling, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotharhithe)
Westwood, J.


Parkinson, J. A.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
White, H. Graham


Pearson, A.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. E. W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Wilkinson, Elian


Poole, C. C.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Stephen, C.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Wilson, C. H. (Atteraliffe)


Ridley, G.
Stokes, R. R.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Riley, B.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Ritson, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Thorne, W.



Rothschild, J. A. de
Thurtle, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Sanders, W. S.
Tinker, J. J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.


Seely, Sir H. M
Tomlinson, G.

BILL PRESENTED.

Agricultural Development Bill,

"to provide for securing farmers against low prices for oats, barley and fat sheep, and for securing a market for barley, for promoting the ploughing up in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine of grass land and rendering it fit for arable crops, for the establishment of a reserve of agricultural machinery, for increasing the resources of any company formed for such purposes as are mentioned in the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, to amend the Agricultural Returns Act, 1925, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith; supported by Mr. Colville, Sir Samuel Hoare, Captain Crookshank, Mr. Ramsbotham and Mr. Wedderburn; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

Standing Committee B.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Water Supply Bill): Sir William Davison; and had appointed in substitution: Commander Tufnell.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the modification of the law relating to the administration of justice in the event of the outbreak or probability of war and for purposes connected therewith. [Administration of Justice (Emergency Provisions)] [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled," An Act to authorise the West Gloucestershire Water Company to construct new waterworks; to raise further capital; and for other purposes."[West Gloucestershire Water Bill] [Lords.]

WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL [LORDS].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Abolition of waiting period.)

Sub-section (6) of Section 31 of the principal Act and that part of the Unemployment Insurance (additional benefits and reduction in contributions) (Agriculture) Order, 1938, made by the Minister under the provisions of Section 59 of the principal Act, which amends the said Sub-section (6) shall cease to have effect and the following Sub-section shall be substituted there for:

(6) Benefit shall be payable in respect of each week of a continuous period of unemployment.— [Mr. David Grenfell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not wish to enter too closely into the technical and administrative difficulties involved. The intention of the proposed new Clause is to abolish what is known as the waiting period and provide benefit for applicants for unemployment benefit from the first day upon which they arc unemployed. This is a long-standing grievance. This very vexatious disqualification has prevented a large number of men from receiving benefit not only during the first three days of their unemployment but for a much longer period than that. While we all deplore the discrimination which the provision makes against people who are not in regular employment, we must remember that there are a number of people who are constantly in and out of employment, and while the disqualification is unjust as applied against men who are unemployed, it bears hardest upon men who are in and out of employment. I know that the disqualification has been modified to this extent, that where a person suffers this disqualification once, he does not suffer the same disqualification for a period of 10 weeks, but, even so, there is the possibility of a workman being unemployed five or six times in the year and the disqualification of the three waiting days is brought against him. It is a great hardship. The man who works less than half time is the man who suffers this loss of benefit, and,

in effect, it means a reduction in the standard rate of benefit to those who become unemployed.
There are other disqualifications. A person does not become entitled to benefit in any week in which he does not lose more than two days. The House has argued this matter over and over again, and I know the Minister's reply. I submit that this House has the final word and, therefore, that an opportunity for a full discussion should be given to hon. Members in all parts of the House who have long recognised that this is a penalty imposed on the less fortunate of that unfortunate body, the unemployed of this country. I hope the Minister will not say that he cannot provide the finance because it will cost so many million pounds. After all, the country can afford whatever number of millions of pounds it may cost far easier than the unemployed man can balance his budget when he is subject to this loss of benefit. We have brought forward this Clause with the intention of achieving this great improvement in the conditions of benefit. It would give satisfaction to an enormous number of people who have suffered this disqualification over and over again. I hope the Minister to-day will listen to what the House has to say before giving a negative answer, and that after the House has spoken he will find it possible to grant this small concession to the unemployed.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Hayday: This is no new subject. I can remember a period of 16 years or so ago when the Trades Union Congress, as representing the industrial organised workers of the country, urged that there should be no waiting period. The Statutory Committee, out of whose report arose the suggestion in the Bill of extending the period from 10 to 20 weeks covered by the three days waiting period, say in their report that under the present law with the waiting time reduced to three days, the decision leads both to great inconvenience of administration and to anomalies. We suggest that we should wipe out these anomalies and make the administration much easier and simpler, and at the same time abolish the modicum of hardship which falls on the unemployed person by accepting the new Clause. At the moment the National Health Insurance scheme has no waiting period. That in itself is a justification for our


request to abolish the waiting period in the case of unemployment, in order that there may be uniformity between these two great national social schemes.
It has been said that the cost of abolishing the waiting period would be about £600,000, but it does not seem to me that the amount would be anything like that. As a result of the operation of the waiting period, a person is often unemployed for a period of three days during which he has no income. In the Committee upstairs, it was argued that it was necessary to have a waiting period in order to bring home to the unemployed person the fact that he was unemployed, and that a person would seek employment with greater assiduity if he had to go for three days without having any income. It was said that the three days' waiting period would be an added incentive to him to look for work. The Minister heard that argument. If that be the reasoning that is seriously put forward on behalf of the great party that is now in power, the sooner they give up making such a heartless argument and abolish the waiting period, the better. It is possible for a person to be in work and out of work four or five times in a year, and on each occasion to serve a fresh three days' waiting period, so that within 12 months a person can be unemployed for 15 days without receiving any unemployment benefit. Surely, the Minister does not intend to condone such a hardship.
The Minister talks a great deal about the problem of unemployment, and he takes great pride in the fact that at the present time, because of circumstances over which neither he nor the House has any control, there is a decrease in the number of unemployed and in the number of claims on the fund. There is plenty of money available. It is not as though it was necessary to maintain the waiting period in order to save the amount of money that would be involved in abolishing it. A measure of saving is nothing by comparison with the measure of misery inflicted by the waiting period. Those first three days are all important. It has been said that the great trade unions insist upon a waiting period because they feel that it is necessary in order either to conserve their funds or to discourage claims for short periods being made on those funds; but I would point out that in the case of the great industrial organisations

which make provision for unemployment benefit, they have no employer's contribution and no State contribution. They have simply the contributions of the workmen, who are called upon to make a sacrifice in their contributions as big as possible, a sacrifice which in itself enables only a small beneficial result to accrue because the income comes from only one source, that source being the wages of the men, on which there are already heavy demands each week. Therefore, there is no comparison between the two cases. As a matter of fact, I am inclined to think that the trade unions administering unemployment benefit, and the contributing members, make a much greater sacrifice than do those who have not made that second important provision through their trade unions in order to get a supplementary income at the end of the week to tide them over periods of unemployment.
In the case of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, there is a contribution from the employer, a contribution from the State and also a contribution from the workman; there is a tripartite channel of finance flowing into the central fund. Therefore, one would expect a national scheme to take in all those trades and industries where perhaps the percentage of unemployment is much less than it is in other trades and industries. An organisation with which I am associated had to give up administering unemployment benefit because the members for which it catered were to a very large extent of the casual class, and the percentage of unemployment among them was always very high and their wages relatively low. If they lost only one day or two days' employment in a week, they very much felt the pinch of the reduced income. That being so, how much more of a hardship must it be if the first three days have to go without there being any unemployment benefit, as a lesson to the man, to teach him that he is unemployed and that he ought to be more careful.
It was said in the Committee that a number of single men are very quick to ask for their cards in order that they may go on to unemployment benefit, but that the married men are more careful. The implication is that the married men will submit to all sorts of conditions rather than run the risk of unemployment, that they will obey any sort of order or submit to a reduced income because they fear


a period of unemployment. I say that you ought not, in addition to that, to hold over them the fear of having this three days' waiting period. If a man is unemployed for a week, he may draw three days of unemployment benefit, representing, if he is a labourer, about one-third of his ordinary weekly income. During that week he goes down to one-third of his income. It is idle for anyone to say that a man having a comparatively low wage, even if prior to that period he has had months of regular employment, is able to provide any savings to enable him to tide over without much sacrifice that first week in which he draws only three days of unemployment benefit.
On the human side of it, the logic of it, the practical side of it—the Committee reported that it led to anomalies—and the financial side of it, this is indeed a very modest request and the Minister ought willingly to acquiesce in it, because its benefits will largely outweigh any increased calls that there may be on the Fund. The Fund is growing, but no one can say that there would be indiscriminate use of the Fund because it is growing; no one can say that this proposal is taking advantage of a surplus that may be available. This requirement needs and demands satisfaction on all human and social considerations, and particularly is it strengthened by reason of the fact that there is no lack of finance in the Fund to meet the modest demand that we make.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: If the Minister is prepared to listen to a few more facts every hon. Member on these benches can give the facts to him. But we do not want to delay the House if he will say "Yes" to this request. I was sorry that I was unable to make a speech last night on unemployment assistance. The Unemployment Assistance Board have said something about these waiting days and linking-up days. Under this Act there are linking-up days, waiting days, continuity days. There are days that seem to be an attempt to prevent a man getting the benefit for which he pays.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): There are more pay days.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister says there are more pay days. I ran up against a man this week at my own house. I am not now bringing stuff from Berlin or

America. This man has played four days and because he has played the four days he has been enabled to get the two days benefit. Another man in the same street has played three days and he cannot get even one day's pay, because unless he plays three days in any six he cannot draw unemployment benefit. I have worked out a sum. I am now giving the case of Easter week. A man plays on the Friday and the Saturday and the Easter Monday, but because he has not played three working days in six, when this Bill becomes operative he will lose one day's benefit. Suppose that he is a man with a wife and three children. The wife can work unemployment benefit better than her husband can. He gets 36s. a week for a full week, that is 6s. a day, and he is going to lose the 6s. on this point.
I do not desire to prolong the discussion because I hope hon. Members opposite agree with what I am saying. In 12 months a man can play 100 days and not get a penny piece for it at the present time; on the continuity he can play 100 days. I notice that the Minister is looking at me at the moment, so I shall work it out for him. A man has his 10 weeks continuity. If he had not drawn any benefit inside those 10 weeks he can play two days every week during those 10 weeks. That makes 20 days, and five times 10 is 50. He can play 104 days in 52 weeks and not draw a penny piece. That is the Act as it stands to-day. The Minister can put that down on his notes, because it is true. We are desirous that the continuity days should be so calculated that when a man plays for six days he will be enabled to draw six days' unemployment benefit. If a man now plays two days each week he loses under the present Act, and the Minister desires still to retain the provision. A man is losing 15 days' benefit at the present time, because when he has played his 10 weeks, and only two days each week, he has to sign on afresh at the end of the 10 days and has three days to play for nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) can put the case far more clearly than I can. I do not know, however, whether he has drawn more unemployment pay than I have. In the last 10 months before I came to this House I drew no days unemployment benefit at 3s. 10½d, a day. There were certain times when I failed to draw


what I ought to have drawn, and I am not speaking from the book.

Viscountess Astor: Labour and the Nation.

Mr. Griffiths: What I am saying did not come from Virginia. I have tasted the sour parts of this arrangement, and I hope therefore that the Minister will accept our proposal.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: It will be admitted by most hon. Members that intermittent employment is tending to increase throughout the country. When the waiting period was first devised the amount of employment, the regularity of employment, were much greater than they are to-day, and particularly the regularity of employment. In the Special Areas—the Minister will have full cognisance of the point—depression set in more deeply, and there are very few collieries that are working comparatively regularly. I think that the attitude of mind to be applied to the waiting period should be completely changed in the light of these circumstances. The unemployed are deprived of a very large number of days every year, but this is an anomaly that ought to be wiped out in the light of the enormous amount of intermittency that pertains in industry generally. The Minister should address himself to that new fact, which is becoming more patent to every, one who studies the question and looks at the statistics. I could cite a number of examples, but I do not want to waste time in doing that because it is common knowledge to every Member representing an industrial constituency that what has been said in this Debate is true. It is possible for an unemployed person to be deprived of benefit for this waiting period four and five times a year. The Minister himself gave a concrete example yesterday. In quoting figures he said that there were 9,000,000 persons affected, so far as the register was concerned.

Mr. S. Brown: Nine million jobs.

Mr. Williams: That is a clear example of the enormous amount of intermittent employment. A person can change his job three or four times a year, and if you multiply the number on the register by three or four or five jobs a year you arrive at the figure which the Minister mentioned

yesterday, of practically 9,000,000 jobs a year. The very figure given by the Minister and the knowledge possessed by most hon. Members are conclusive evidence of the necessity for the waiting period ceasing to exist. I sincerely trust that the Minister will address himself to this new fact.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Batey: In the past, when we have been discussing unemployment and waiting days, we have argued that the waiting days ought to be cleared away altogether. There was a time when the waiting days were six. Then the six were reduced to three. The House seemed then to be impressed with the idea that a three days period was not very bad after all, and that an unemployed man could easily get over those waiting days. For the first time the Unemployment Assistance Board in their Report this year deal with the hardness of the waiting period. On page 20 of the report they are dealing with cases that require special treatment and they say this:
Some of them are people who have only been unemployed for a few days and are consequently only entitled to draw a few days' benefit; others are unable to draw benefit at all because of waiting days.
Then on page 60 the Board are far more definite as to what the attitude should be because of the hardness of these waiting days. They say:
Additional to the applications already referred to were about 186,000 cases where an allowance was sought during the ' waiting days ' preceding the payment of unemployment benefit. Allowances were granted in over 120,000 of these cases.
I submit that the Unemployment Assistance Board makes out a case for the abolition of the waiting period. I suggest that under Clause 1 of the Bill we shall be in a worse position than before, because of the new holidays. I do not wish to argue that point now as we intend to raise it on Clause 1, but, in my opinion, it is a dangerous Clause, and as far as the waiting days are concerned we are entitled to say to the House that the case for the new Clause has been made out by the Board.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: The Minister should be very ready to pay attention to the eloquent appeals which have been made to him from above the Gangway, because he himself has paved the way for this demand in his recent speeches. He has told us that we are misleading our-


selves as to the situation if we take the total figure of unemployment as representing a standing army. I accept that statement from him, at any rate for the purposes of this Debate, but if this total is not a standing army, it is, at any rate, an army that is frequently marking time, and this marking time is a strain upon those engaged in it. The more the right hon. Gentleman convinces us that this is an army of people who are intermittently employed, the more reason is there to pay attention to the appeals which have been made to him to-day and which I support. It is not as if there were in this proposal any very strong demand which would put a strain upon the available resources. Under present conditions there is no reason to suppose that the funds available will not be ample to meet every possible demand. If we are to find a way of utilising the available resources which is not too ambitious, and does not endanger the Fund, I cannot imagine anything which would give more general satisfaction and relief than if the Minister were to signify his assent to this new Clause.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: The general case in favour of abolishing the waiting period has been argued time and again with considerable force, and I recognise that the Minister has now, as regards a large number of the unemployed, abolished the waiting period. The doubling of the time has had the effect of abolishing it in the case of a number of people who are in and out of employment in turns. To that extent we all accept with considerable thanks the improvement which has been made. But apart from the general case, I would ask the Minister to look again at certain aspects of this question. I know it is not likely that we shall induce him to change his mind to-day on the general question, but can he not reconsider his decision in regard to the effect of the waiting period in certain cases? I make a plea for one class of case which is found, frequently, in the light castings trade. I have no cases of the kind in my division, but I come across such cases in connection with my trade union. They are cases of men who work four days a week and are unemployed on two days and who can never qualify for benefit. I know of some of these cases in which men have been unemployed for 80 days in the year. They have lost two days

employment every week for 40 weeks and yet have never qualified for unemployment benefit.
I am in these days too much of a pessimist to hope for much from this Government, but I think the Minister ought to consider now whether, instead of adhering to the old rule of three days in six, he might not introduce a practice which would ease things considerably for many people by making it four days in eight. That would have the effect of bringing in classes of workers who are very hardly dealt with under the present arrangements. A great deal depends on the employer. Certain employers, in order to meet the case of the men, can adjust the employment so as to bring the men within the scope of the Act, but there are other employers who refuse to make any adjustments and in such cases we are penalising the workers by the present arrangement. I ask the Minister to reconsider this adamant rule. It is frequently the case that a man may be employed one day this week, two days in another week and three days in the following week, and yet because of this rule he cannot qualify for benefit. I think there should be some alteration so as to bring in the man who has a genuine period of unemployment and I ask him to look at that matter sympathetically. On the general issue of abolishing the waiting period, there is little force nowadays in the arguments which were formerly used in favour of the waiting period. The arrangement has little effect now from the point of view of preventing abuse. The position, I admit, has been modified by the reduction from six days to three and the extension of the time. In passing, may I ask whether the extension of the time makes any change in the sickness rule which now operates?
There is another aspect of the matter to which, I hope, the Minister will give attention. If a man is dismissed from work on a Saturday, he recives nothing on the following Friday, because the first three days are the waiting period and the exchange pays only up to the Wednesday night. Thus, for that week, the man gets nothing and in the following week he receives the full sum to which he is entitled. But consider the case of a man with a limited wage and with a wife and perhaps two children. A solid fortnight elapses after his dismissal before he re-


ceives any unemployment benefit. This is very serious in these days of heavy on-costs in which rent plays an increasing part. In my own city of Glasgow—and I am sure the same thing applies to other centres—local authorities tend more and more to move the working-class population to the outskirts so that transport costs, in addition to rent, are becoming very heavy. To-day, the ordinary workman, even the skilled artisan, after three or four months' work, no matter how diligent or how thrifty he may be, can only make very meagre savings, and this lapse of a fortnight, if he loses employment, means the disappearance of what he has saved, perhaps for a holiday or perhaps to give something additional to the children. If the Minister cannot consider the question of abolishing the waiting period entirely, let him consider the suggestions which I have put to him. I have not even a faint hope that he will abolish the waiting period altogether, but I hope that he will at least reconsider the matter in view of the effect of the waiting period on the standards of the working classes, and the desirability of helping those people who, in order to give their children a chance, have moved to the outskirts of our great cities.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: I do not know what attitude the Minister will take towards the proposed new Clause, but in Committee a similar Clause was proposed, and he had to fight the rest of the Committee upon it. There is one point which has not been brought forward in this Debate and was not brought forward in Committee. The Minister's opposition to a similar proposal in Committee was on the ground of cost. I assume that he obtained his figures of cost on the basis of the present statistics, but, from an employer's point of view, it is impossible, even in normal times or in times when industry is not as brisk as it is at present, to shut a factory down for three days in the week in order that the employés can draw unemployment pay. If the period were reduced, it would be possible to shut a factory down for one day or for two days, and for employers by working longer on a number of days to give their employés an opportunity of drawing unemployment pay for one or two days. On the other

hand, I cannot understand that the fund would permit that extra payment. I should be very pleased to see the employés get the extra money, but we have to consider the financial stability of the fund. It was on that ground alone that the Minister opposed a Clause of this kind in Committee, and I think he will oppose this Clause for the same reason. I would only say, in conclusion, that it is impossible to measure the amount which it will cost.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: Many of us took part in the discussion of a similar proposal in Committee and one hon. Member, speaking from the employers' point of view, took almost the same line as that just taken by the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs). I have risen to state one or two of the difficulties with which we are confronted in the country in working this rule.
The Minister yesterday told the Committee that there had been very little industrial unrest in the country during the last 12 months, and I could" not help wondering whether the Minister had considered the question of how many people there were who were making contributions to the smooth working of industry. I had particularly in mind the mining industry, where short-time working applies more perhaps than in many other industries. It is for that reason that I have risen to ask the Minister to reconsider this question of the waiting period. I do not want to follow the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Hems-worth (Mr. G. Griffiths) or the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who said that it was possible to have as many as 18 idle days in a year without getting any benefit at all. The hon. Member for Hemsworth carried it to the extent of saying that where a four days working week is rigidly carried out, it may apply to as many as 100 working days in any one year for which the insured worker could not secure any payment whatever. That is a very serious matter.
I want to look at it, however, from another point of view, and that is from the standpoint of the workings at individual firms and collieries, and but for a good deal of co-operation in industry between employers and trade union


officials, I am satisfied that there would really have been a first-class row in this country on this very Clause itself. In some cases you have big units of men, say, 2,000 or 3,000, working with one firm, and the case that I have in mind is that of a colliery. If I had not been in a position, before I came to this House, to get a decent working arrangement within this rule at the pit from which I came,. I am sure there would have been trouble. Men would not work four days, with a holiday of two days, week in and week out, knowing full well that if they took holiday for three days, they would been titled to payment, and I cannot conceive that they would go on for any length of time in such circumstances without there being a first-class industrial row. I do not want to take all the credit at all to the trade union people.
I want to pay what credit is due elsewhere, but employers know very well that if they were to work this Act in its entirety, many industries in this country would have continuous friction, difficulty, and industrial disturbance, and the Minister would not be able to come down here and say, as he said yesterday, that there had been very little disturbance in industry. I believe that by the abolition of this waiting period and by taking the broad and generous view, just as we reduced the six days to three without hardship, we could reduce this down until it was abolished altogether, and it would not create financial hardship or stringency. On the contrary, I take the view that it would very largely relieve industrial difficulties in this country, and I am sure that both employers and workpeople would welcome the change if the Minister was prepared to accept this proposal.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Collindridge: In the Committee stage, when we discussed this matter, no effective arguments, in my opinion, were used against this Clause. Some hon. Members opposite said that the trade unions in years gone by, in their desire to help people who suffered from unemployment, before there were any State measures to help them, had a waiting period. I thought that that argument was very low down, from the point of view that if the community did not see its way clear to help workers who were suffering enforced idleness, and was trying to help them over their difficulties,

out of meagre means and humble trade union contributions, it was wrong to take that as a pattern and example of what the State should do when unemployment came along. Further, there is an argument that could well be used, that this matter of casual employment is becoming all too common. Before coming to this House I experienced very much of it. I came here last year, and for about a dozen years before that the colliery at which I was employed worked on an average less than 180 shifts in each of those dozen years. We had many of those weeks in which there were only four days' employment, and very often, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) said, because of the operation of this waiting period there was no opportunity to get any recognition for the two days' play. Our contention is that work of that kind ought to be looked at from this point of view, that you have here a job where you have fairly constantly a one-third reduction in the standard of life because of this casual employment, and a job of that description gives very little opportunity for means to be collected together, by savings and so on, to deal with the period when there is no employment at all.
Further, there is the definite argument that can be used that this Bill will make the position in regard to the waiting period worse than it is at present. The suggestion is that by lengthening the period from 10 weeks to 20 weeks, we shall be better off, but that is just the coating on the pill. The real pill itself, the bitter administration of it, is that no holidays days are to be recognised in the future for unemployment pay and that they will not count as continuity days. Let me quote an instance from the district that I represent. The workers at the mine there were off work from the Friday preceding Whit week till the following Wednesday. It is fair to say that Whit Monday and Tuesday are not to be recognised for unemployment, but those two days at present, on account of unemployment administration, can be linked up as continuity days with other days of unemployment, and thus entitle a man to some degree of benefit, but under the new Measure introduced by the Government that opportunity is precluded from arising. Therefore, we shall have a situation in the future in which the waiting period will be more acute than hitherto.
I want also to raise this position, and if the Minister of Labour does not accept it—though I hope he will open his heart and look more kindly on this suggestion than he did in Committee—I hope that at least hon. Members opposite will be fair and try to look favourably upon it. Some hon. Members may be unaware of the difficulty, not only to the individuals who experience these unemployed or partially unemployed periods, but to the traders in the districts concerned. Where you have a one-third reduction of the standard of wages by reason of partial employment it weighs heavily upon the trading communities in those localities. These are days when hon. Members are working for as much unity in this land as it is possible to get, and I suggest that a gesture from the Members opposite, and particularly from the more favoured parts of the country, to help the position by way of this Amendment would help not only the unemployed folk themselves, but also the trading communities in the districts concerned. I am glad that the Minister of Labour referred to the greater harmony that exists in industry. We on this side are ever wishful to have a continuance of that harmony. I am not unmindful that often industrial strife weighs more heavily upon people of humble origin and on the working class than on the better-to-do people, and if we can avoid that kind of thing, we feel it our duty to do it; but I can well visualise a situation in which, if we are going to be in a boom period, people who have hitherto had to stand some degree of what they rightly feel is hardship due to a depression, may be inclined in better times to stand it no longer. I ask the House in regard to that aspect of things, not in the nature of a threat, but as a commonsense appeal, to see if any possibility of trouble arising can be avoided.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken was in error in saying that this Clause was considered in Committee. We had a long discussion on another Amendment, but not of quite the same character. That Amendment was disposed of after a long discussion, and we do not want to re-open it now. I think I shall be meeting the general wish of the House if I exclude references to the historical story behind this issue and confine myself to the special case that the

House is asked to consider. No hon. Member can ever listen to a discussion on the waiting period and the difficulties that arise from it unmoved. As the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) rightly said, there are two things that have happened in recent days about the waiting period. First of all, we have reduced it from six days to three days, and to that degree the position is better now than that described by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), when he first came to this House, and, secondly, in the present Bill we are doing a great deal to ease the position of the intermittent worker. The maximum period between two periods of unemployment before a new waiting period is imposed is now 10 weeks which by this present Bill is being doubled. So the position has been eased. I am asked by the Amendment to do one of two things, I am not quite sure which, because there was a discrepancy between the arguments of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), who opened the discussion, and the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) who followed. The Amendment may be read in either of two ways as I see it, either as the plea made by the hon. Member for Gower for the total abolition of the waiting period or, as put by the hon. Member for West Nottingham, as the abolition of the waiting period retaining the three in six rule. They are quite different things. That is why I point this out—in order to make it quite clear that there is a fundamental difference between the two as to the effect of the Amendment. I will tell the House what our estimates are of the cost to the fund of either of those propositions.
The arguments for this are really not theoretical, and they never have been. Just as the arguments for abolition are practical, so the arguments for the retention of the three in six rule are practical. This thing arose out of the practice when there were limited funds to deal with unemployment. It was then considered that, if you had to choose between giving a man some money at the end of a period of unemployment or at the beginning, it was better to give it at the end. I have never in recent days used that argument. Since the coming of the Unemployment Assistance Board it is no longer valid, so I do not urge it now. The real argument is that, as always when we are asked to reform this great social service, or indeed


any other, we have to take our argument as it is on the particular proposition put up at any moment. That proposition is not the only one that can be urged and supported by speeches as practical and as eloquent as those that have been delivered to-day. All who have followed the propositions put by trade unions, employers and individuals since the Beveridge Committee has had the oversight of the fund will know that there are scores of propositions for the betterment of the social conditions of those who come on the fund. The first argument is as to whether, when a particular proposition is put up to the Government in terms of finance, it is a proposition which is better on the whole for the unemployed, for whom we are trustees, than another. Quotations have been made. One was made by the hon. Member which I must complete. He talked about the administration. He ought to have added, as I will, that, despite those arguments, he did not last time recommend the abolition of the waiting period.
We are asked either to abolish the waiting period wholly or to abolish it retaining the three in six rule. I was asked what the cost would be. The cost to the fund of abolishing the waiting period and paying benefit for every single day of unemployment cannot be precisely estimated, but the best estimate I can give is that it would cost £5,000,000 per annum. If, on the other hand, the proposition advanced by the hon. Member for West Nottingham was carried and the three in six rule as regards continuity was kept on the new basis of a "bridge" of 20 weeks—the improvement that we are now making—we estimate that the annual cost would be £1,150,000. Hon Members have talked as if there was plenty of money available for this. That is not so. The Committee is responsible by Statute for reporting as to the solvency of the fund, and their last report in January last was that there was no disposable surplus, though there was a balance of £44,000,000. It is not true to say that they have reported that there is plenty of money. At the end of the year they have to make their next report. All those intimately concerned with the working of the fund, whether the Trades Union Congress itself, individual trade unions, Members of Parliament, other individuals or other organisations in industry, will in the light of what they conceive to be the position

of the fund put to the committee a whole list of new reforms. It may well be that the Trades Union Congress, as they have done before, will once more put up this plea, but in the light of the last report and in the light of the fact that this will cost either £5,000,000 or £1,150,000 I cannot recommend it now.
That brings me to the point put by the hon. Member for Gorbals. About that I make no promise whatever. The three in six rule was a great improvement on the old rule which preceded it. When the next discussion comes those who want reform will perhaps put to the committee four in eight or six in twelve, but the machinery exists now not merely for the House to discuss the issues, as it has done to-day, but for all those who want reform in the light of the actual internal finance of the fund and the prospective finance as adjudged by the committee to put their points. When I said just now that we always had to judge, when we had so much money to dispose of in the fund, whether one way of helping the unemployed was better than another, you have to remember that the moment you come to touch the waiting period at the small end you are dealing with a large number of claims. It might very well be that in discussing the comparative merits of this and other reforms both the committee and the House might think that some other reform, costing as much money, might in the end be better for the general body of the unemployed than this particular one. I express no final opinion about that, but in the light of what I have said I must ask the House to reject the Clause.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: We are sorry to have heard the Minister's refusal of this Clause but I cannot say that we are surprised. It is true that we did not discuss it directly in the Committee, but I think he will agree that we came as near discussing it as was possible without putting t down directly on the Paper. There is one thing that I appreciate about the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He has at last made a very straight statement, which I hope is final on the matter for the future, that there is no comparison between the State fund and the methods of the old trade unions. [Interruption.] I have heard comparisons which I thought at the time came dangerously near sneering at the organisations which made a gallant


straggle in the old days when there was no one to help them. The House is always at a disadvantage in discussing these matters because, while Members who are familiar with the working of unemployment insurance can make speeches which illuminate the Amendment under discussion, like those we have had to-day, the average Member does not understand that what we are dealing with is the well-being of some 14,000,000 insured people the bulk of whom would not average 50s., if the truth were known, taken over a year. I have a summary of the wage statistics of one of our chief industries. If you take the whole of the mining industry, including officials and piece workers, it does not average £3 a week throughout the year. The average is about 11s. 6d. a day. If you take one district—I will not name it—the average is 9s. 9d. There are tens of thousands of workers in the industry who do not average more than seven shillings a day and the bulk of the workers do not average £2 a week. There are other industries which pay much less than that. It is these people that we are dealing with. To lose a day's wage is a tragic thing for them. To lose a day's benefit is very bad indeed.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly accepted the very generous statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that the increase from 10 weeks to 20 was improving the position but let the House note, especially hon. Members opposite, that there is going to be trouble over the Bill. I agree that if it is a question of a balance between the three in six and the increasing of the time probably I would deal with the three in

six. But there are going to be great difficulties as a result of this Bill. I warn Members on both sides of the House that there will be an uproar in the country as a result of its passing equal to that which arose upon the passing of the Regulations. It is going to affect great industries and those who have been used to getting benefit for certain days that are not to count in the future. There is no doubt about it. I agree that the value of the complete abolition as compared with some of the benefits is an argument that can be overdone, but is the £5,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a vast sum in dealing with the millions of workers affected by the common expenditure of that fund? I venture to say it is not. May I put this to the right hon. Gentleman? He said that recommendations will be made, but whether by himself or by some other persons we do not know. He has the power to make recommendations. We ask him if he would make recommendations upon this matter. Would he consider making recommendations for the abolition of the waiting period? We will go into the Lobby against the Government. The question affects millions of workers who get very little and who just miss getting unemployment benefit from time to time because of this waiting period. We will go into the Lobby because we hope that we shall get a sufficiently strong vote to impress the right hon. Gentleman with the wisdom of making recommendations later.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 237.

Division No. 157.]
AYES.
[5.5 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Charleton, H. C.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cluse, W. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cocks, F. S.
Grenfell, D. R.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Collindridge, F.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Adamson, W. M.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Daggar, G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Ammon, C. G.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Groves, T. E.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare.)


Banfield, J. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Barnes, A. J.
Day, H.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Bartlett, C. V. 0.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hayday, A.


Batey, J.
Ede, J. C.
Henderson, J. (Ardwisk)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Bellenger, F. J.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Jagger, J.


Benson, G.
Fool, D. M.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Bevan, A.
Frankel, D.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Broad, F. A.
Gallacher, W.
John, W.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Gardner, B. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Buchanan, G.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Burke, W. A.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Cape, T.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Kirby, B. V.




Kirkwood, D.
Oliver, G. K.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-la-Sp'ng)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Owen, Major G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Lathan, G.
Paling, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lawson, J. J.
Parkinson, J. A.
Thorne, W.


Leach, W.
Pearson, A.
Thurtle, E.


Lee, F.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Tinker, J. J.


Leonard, W.
Poole, C. C.
Tomlinson, G.


Leslie. J. R.
Price, M. P.
Viant. S. P.


Logan, D. G.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Walkden, A. G.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Walker, J.


McEntee, V. La T.
Ridley, G.
Watkins, F. C.


McGhee, H. G.
Riley, B.
Watson, W. McL.


McGovern, J.
Ritson, J.
Welsh, J. C.


MacLaren, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Westwood, J.


Maclean, N.
Rothschild, J. A. de
White, H. Graham


Mainwaring, W. H.
Sanders, W. S.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Mander, G. le M.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Marshall, F.
Sexton, T. M.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Maxton, J.
Shinwell, E.
Wilmot, J.


Messer, F.
Silverman, S. S.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Milner, Major J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Montague, F.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)



Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, T. (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Muff, G.
Sorensen, R. W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Naylor, T. E.
Stephen, C.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Jennings, R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Duggan, H. J.
Keeling, E. H.


Assheton, R.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dunglass, Lord
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Eastwood, J. F.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Balniel, Lord
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Ellis, Sir G.
Latham, Sir P.


Bernays, R. H.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lees-Jones, J.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Emmett, C. E. G. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Blair, Sir R.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Levy, T.


Bossom, A. C.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Lewis, O.


Boulton, W. W.
Fildes, Sir H.
Liddall, W. S.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Findlay, Sir E.
Lipson, D. L.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Fleming, E. L.
Lloyd, G. W.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Loftus, P. C.


Brass, Sir W.
Furness, S. N.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
McKie, J. H.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Grant-Farris, Flight-Lieutenant R.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Macquisten, F. A.


Bull, B. B.
Gridley. Sir A. B.
Magnay, T.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Maitland, Sir Adam


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Grimston, R. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest


Burton, Col. H. W.
Guest, Hon. J. (Brecon and Radnor)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Markham, S. F.


Cary, R. A.
Hambro, A. V.
Marsden, Commander A,


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hammersley, S. S.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hannah, I. C.
Medlicott, F.


Channon, H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Harbord, A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Conant, Captain R. J. E
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hepworth, J.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Higgs, W. F.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Holdsworth, H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hopkinson, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Cross, R. H.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Munro, P.


Crossley, A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


De la Bere, R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Danville, Alfred
Hume, Sir G. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hunloke, H. P.
Patrick, C. M.


Doland, G. F.
Hunter, T.
Peaks, O.


Donner, P. W.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Perkins, W. R. D.







Petherick, M.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Salmon, Sir I.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. M.


Procter, Major H. A.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Touche, G. C.


Radford, E. A.
Scott, Lord William
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Ramsbotham, H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wallace. Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Smithers, Sir W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Snadden, W. McN.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Somerset, T.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Wickham, Lt-Col. E. T. R.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Remer, J. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Willoughby de Eresby. Lord


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wise, A. R.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Rosbotham, Sir T.
Sutcliffe, H.
York, C.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Tate, Mavis C.



Rowlands, G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
 Lieut.-Colonel Herbert and Lieut. -


Russell, Sir Alexander
Thomas, J. P. L.
Colonel Harvie Watt.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): Mr. Foot.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of Order. Do I understand that you are not calling the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) and others dealing with trade disputes? This does seem to be an extremely important Clause which ought to be dealt with.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that that Clause was not selected.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask upon what grounds it was refused?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid I can give no reasons for that.

Mr. Lawson: It seems to me that if this is to be the order of the Amendments there will be great difficulty for us in discussing this very important Bill dealing in the 15 or 16 Clauses with about eight different subjects. If such Clauses and Amendments are to be ruled out, I do not understand how we are to discuss this Bill on the Report stage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman may not be quite clear about this matter. After all, the Chair selects the Amendments for discussion.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: The Chair may select them, but I take it that the House has a perfect right to ask the reason for Amendments being selected or not, otherwise it seems to me there is a greater power reclining in the hands of the Chair than has ever been contemplated by the Members of this House. The Clause is

on the Paper. It deals with an important phase of this Bill which we shall otherwise be debarred from discussing, and I put it to you as a serious proposition that it should be called.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member of the Standing Orders of this House under which Mr. Speaker does not give any reasons for or against selecting any particular Amendments.

Mr. Smith: Then the power which reclines in the Speaker debars Members of this House from dealing with specific Amendments to a Measure brought forward by the Government, and does not that allow of partiality on the part of the Speaker in supporting the Government's contention?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not say that Mr. Speaker uses his power in that way. The Chair uses its powers impartially.

Mr. Hayday: Does the non-calling of a new Clause which is printed on the Paper preclude a discussion of the subject of it on Third Reading?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the subject-matter of it is in the Bill already it would certainly be in order to discuss it, but it would not be in order if the subject-matter were outside the Bill.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: May I point out respectfully that this whole question was discussed fully in Committee and that there are points to be discussed by hon. Members who were not on the Committee and that your decision is depriving them of that opportunity?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: My decision is not depriving any hon. Member of any rights. The hon. Member himself has given one of the reasons why the new Clause has not been selected.

Mr. Lawson: I know that it is within the power of the Chair to select Amendments. We regard this new Clause as dealing with a very important point, and there are Amendments later standing in the names of several of my hon. Friends which raise important issues concerning pay, upon Clause 1 of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot now discuss the question of whether those Amendments will be selected.

Mr. Lawson: The only point I wished to make was that I am very apprehensive of what is going to happen with regard to very important aspects of this Bill if most of our Amendments are to be ruled out.

Mr. Naylor: May I ask whether the selection of the Amendments was made by Mr. Speaker himself or by the Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point which the hon. Member may raise.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Laying of Regulations.)

Before any regulation is made under Section one or Section two of this Act the Minister shall cause the regulation to be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament, and such regulation shall not be made unless both Houses by Resolution approve the draft, either without modification or addition or with modification or addition to which both Houses agree, but upon such approval being given the Minister may make the regulation in the form in which it has been approved, and the regulation on being so made shall be of full force and effect.—[Mr. Foot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I said on the Second Reading of the Bill that it seemed to me that this Measure represented the high water mark, so far, of Government by regulation. That process is carried further in this Bill than it has ever been carried before, I think. Everyone must appreciate that in these days a large number of Ministerial orders and rules and regulations is unavoidable. It is impossible to ask Parliament to settle every detail of legislation, and it is not an unreasonable arrangement

that we here should lay down the main provisions of a Statute and leave the minor matters to be filled in by the Department by means of regulations. But that is not what has been done here.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has referred to the great importance of the matters covered by Clause 1, and has ventured the somewhat startling prophecy that when that Clause is put into operation it will cause as much uproar in the country as did the first set of unemployment regulations of unfortunate memory. Hon. Members will see that under Sub-section (2) of the Clause the Minister may make regulations for determining a number of matters. One of them is whether an insured contributor in the circumstances specified in the regulations is or is not to be deemed to be on holiday for the purposes of the principal Act. I draw attention to the words "is or is not." It is left completely to the discretion of the Minister. No one can tell by looking at the Clause what arrangement will be made under the regulations. There is a similar provision in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2). Subsection (3) lays down that the powers of the Minister of Health and of the Department of Health in Scotland to make regulations under the National Health Insurance Act and the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936, shall
include power to make regulations for determining whether payments received by an employed contributor in, the circumstances specified in the regulations are or are not to be deemed for the purpose of the provisions of those Acts relating to the payment of contributions to be remuneration paid in respect of any week during the whole or part of which the employed contributor was on holiday.
What has to be decided clearly is whether, when a man gets a holiday with pay, it is to be a contribution week for health insurance purposes. That point has to be decided one way or the other, and why should it not be decided by this House instead of being left to the Ministry of Labour or any other Government Department? That is not an unimportant detail and it is a matter which could perfectly well be decided on the Floor of the House instead of being left to a Minister. We are not just filling in the gaps by means of regulations; we are actually making regulations a substitute for Acts of Parliament. We are asked,


in effect, to abdicate our legislative responsibilities in favour of a Department in Whitehall.
As the Bill stands there is only one safeguard, and that is that the regulations will be deemed to be regulations to be treated under the Act of 1935 and laid on the Table of the House for a certain period. We all know how little value is to be attached to that safeguard, how difficult it is to move a Prayer at some late hour of the night and get a sufficiently interested House to start an intelligent Debate. There is, further, this great difficulty in which the House finds itself whenever it deals with these matters by way of regulations, and that is that it cannot amend the regulations. When we are dealing with small matters it is reasonable, no doubt, that we should not have that power of amendment. On the many occasions on which I have raised the question in this House I have never suggested that we should have the power to amend in every case, or that it is necessary for us to draft and shape every small regulation, but when we are dealing with a question of the magnitude and importance of those dealt with in Clauses 1 and 2 it is vital for the House to retain the power to make amendments. I know that there are very few precedents for giving the House power to amend a Ministerial order or regulation, but I think it is time we established some precedent, because again and again we find matters of great consequence are not dealt with in the Act itself but are left over to be dealt with by means of regulations.
Hon. Members will recall how, in the last Parliament, we spent a great part of a Session discussing the Unemployment Act, 1934. That Act followed upon a three years' agitation over the means test, which was at the time the most burning political issue before the country. When the Bill was brought in we all looked eagerly to see what the future of the means test was to be, but we could not possibly tell from the Bill itself, because it was laid down that the conditions of the means test should be determined by regulations which, indeed, needed the assent of Parliament—in that respect the position was a little better than here—but which Parliament was powerless to amend. It constantly happens that hon. Members are placed in a great difficulty when

called upon to accept or reject regulations en bloc, because they may be reluctant to vote against the whole set of regulations, though having very strong objection to some particular part. This procedure does tie the hands of the House and derogates in a very real way from the authority of the House. Here we are going even further than we went in 1934. Certain broad general rules were laid down in the Act of 1934, which governed the regulations afterwards made, but there is no provision of that kind in the first two Clauses of this Bill. There is only a general power to make regulations on this subject, and there is not a single hon. Member who can possibly tell what the result of this step will be upon the people who will be affected.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. K. Griffith: I beg to second the Motion.
The subject which is raised in the new Clause is an extremely important one, concerning a process in modern legislation under which this House is getting rid of some of its most important functions, devolving them sometimes upon outside boards and other authorities and sometimes upon the Minister in charge of the Bill. It raises a question of wider importance even than the important subject of unemployment insurance. As we, as a legislative body, devolve our powers more and more upon other bodies, we decrease the importance and prestige of this House. It is essential that the House should keep the closest watch upon and the closest control of all matters which affect the day-to-day life of the people so much as do these questions of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Hayday: I support the new Clause because in going through Clause 1 one can realise the important issues which are at stake. We are proposing to hand over to the Department the right to make regulations dealing with practically the whole of the unfortunate persons who will be receiving benefits under this legislation. We often ask the Minister whether he can consider this or that suggestion, and we get sympathetic replies, but often he has to tell us that while he would like to consider our proposals he has to remember that there is in existence a Statutory Committee to whom they must first


go, particularly if they raise any financial problems. I do not think it is fair to the Minister to explain that the House of Commons is ready to hand over to the Department the full power of making regulations without the House of Commons having a controlling power and an effective check, apart from waiting until some late hour at night to exercise it, when a Prayer is presented. That usually takes place about 12 p.m. or One o'clock in the morning, when there is a great difficulty in securing a quorum. It develops into a farce, no matter how serious. grave and important the subject-matter may be. It is a travesty of control. Anything which will give effective control would be a protection to the Minister.
The Minister might well accept this new Clause and say: " I will, in the first instance, take the responsibility, by consultation with my Department, of presenting what I deem to be the regulations required in the circumstances, as prescribed in Clause 1, but I would like to consult the House of Commons upon this matter. I would like the guidance of the House, and fresh discussion upon the matter." Otherwise, a situation will arise which is rather paradoxical. When you ask for something definite to go into the Bill so that there will be no question about it, the Minister and the Government say: "No. We sympathise, and we would like to do it, but, definitely, No. It must not go into the Bill; but, as a substitute, you can give us power to make regulations." Is it to be supposed that a Government Department will make regulations more favourable than proposals which they rejected when put forward as Amendments to the Bill to make the Clause more definite? No. It is more likely that their manipulations will be carried out to deal with circumstances that might arise quite suddenly, and in such a manner that all the reactionary influences can be brought to bear on the Department. The matter will not become a subject of discussion and be faced in the full light of Debate upon the Floor of this House. That process lends itself to influences operating outside the House of Commons and not representing the people at all.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: To federations.

Mr. Hayday: Yes, to federations of employers and finance corporations. If, next year, the Trades Union Congress

were to go again before the Committee, and, in the light of whatever balances there were, asked for certain recommendations, I know what would happen. If one studies the representations of the Trades Union Congress on the Blanes-burgh and other Commissions that have sat, and examines how far they have been considered in comparison with counter-proposals submitted by the great federations of employers and financial institutions, the balance of advantage will never be found to fall the way of the industries. If the Trades Union Congress suggests something to the Minister, he may say: "I will consider it. I will consult the other interests involved before coming to a decision." Then he will consider and consult those interests. If it happens to be a mining question or one relating to the maintenance of holidays in connection with national health, he will say: "I will consult the mine-owners." My miner Friends will know where the balance will go in those circumstances, upon those economic subjects.
It is because I can see dangers like that, that I am raising this matter. I would not care if the Minister were entirely beyond reproach and were a person without sin, or a man of the highest virtue. I would still say that he is a frail human in this respect. He is frail in the sense that there are these outside influences, and all the power of his Department constantly warning him and telling him to beware of this, that and the other. That will wear him down, no matter how sturdily he may start out on the fight, and however good his intentions may be. There is a phrase used in connection with good intentions. I do not know where they pave the road to.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: The Minister does.

Mr. Hayday: Yes, no doubt he does; but this is really a serious case. In the circumstances we would ask the Minister to make regulations to permit payment to unemployed men, about whom there was a doubt whether he was receiving his holiday pay or not, or whether his circumstances were such that he should be called upon to pay his contribution or to be excused his contribution for the maintenance of himself. What is his desire? Can he tell us now what he is


afraid of? What has he in his mind in connection with these regulations? What condition of things can he conceive which would mean that he could not accept the conditions proposed and put them definitely into a Clause in the Bill to take the place of the Clauses which will give an enormous amount of power without any Parliamentary check besides that of offering a Prayer? I give the fullest possible support to the idea, and if the movers of the proposed new Clause force the matter to a Division, in the absence of a suitable reply from the Government, I am sure we shall be with them. Such regulations cannot be allowed without check in the hands of a reactionary Government to control the lives of those who have to seek the assistance of the social machinery of unemployment insurance.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: I hope that the Minister will accept the proposed new Clause. I will not follow the line taken by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but I would oppose power being given to any Minister, whether he is reactionary or not such as is being asked for in the Bill. I am not certain that there would not be equal danger whatever Government came in, in giving to any Minister the powers for which this Clause asks. I loathe and hate the growth of bureaucracy. I believe there is a danger in this country of losing our legislative privileges in this House bit by bit. There can be a growth of dictatorship without a seething revolution. In my eight years' experience in this House it seems that we have been continually handing power over to people outside the House. It is true that the Minister is responsible in theory for the regulations. I am not one to criticise the Civil Service, as I recognise their splendid work, but with all their ability and good will they are not so well acquainted with human problems as are we who are sent here to represent the people of the country.
This case may emphasise the danger of giving the power to make these regulations, because the subject with which they would deal is acute, and relates to human problems of a very serious nature. It does not alter the principle of this House giving power to a Minister—probably to some man employed at a desk in White-

hall, because that is what it means—to draw up regulations, and for the only opportunity we have in this House to be by putting down a Prayer. I have had experience in this matter and I have been through a good deal of opposition of that kind. I know what it means if, after 11 o'Clock at night, one ventures to get up and express an opinion on a Motion which has been put down in a form of a Prayer. One is howled down and one hears: "For goodness sake let us get away." After 11 o'Clock it is apt to be impossible to give to a matter of this kind the attention it ought to have.
I have one other point. I have no faith in the infallibility of any Minister, to whatever party he may belong; my hon. Friend knows that I am not saying this with particular reference to himself. I want to see this House retain power, not merely to accept or reject regulations, but to alter them. I have found myself in a difficult position on many occasions with regard to regulations. I may have agreed to quite a good part of the regulations, but to a certain part I have had to offer strong opposition, but one has had to take them or leave them. On some part of the proposed new Clause there may be some difficulty, but we want to have the power of amendment. That is vital, and this House ought to regard that as part of its legislative duty. I trust that the Minister will accept the proposed new Clause. It will not take away his power. It will mean only that we examine the regulations, and if we do not like them we shall try to amend them and make them better. I see nothing in that which challenges the power of the Minister. We all talk much about democratic government and the power of the representatives of the people, but on whatever side of the House we sit we ought to watch with great vigilance that our power is not abrogated, and that our functions are not used outside the House. This is a very reasonable new Clause.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has obviously an uneasy mind as well as an uneasy seat in the House. The point he has put on the question of bureaucracy seems to be from the middle of the nineteenth century. The proposed new Clause raises a question of very considerable importance to the House as a whole. It raises the whole question of good government, parliamentary


authority and parliamentary control. If one looks at the Bill one discovers that there are as many reserved powers and authorities in it as there are Clauses. I cannot understand why the Minister could not have a definition of "holiday" in the Bill or in a Schedule at the end. A little later in the evening we shall be asked to vote on Clause 1, but as the Clause stands it is entirely meaningless without the definition which should have accompanied it in a Schedule.
The first point, therefore, is that we are delegating to the Minister a power which is almost as great as the power of the Bill. We are giving him a power that the House itself should retain, and we should have in the Bill a definition of the significance of Clause 1 and the subsequent Clauses. The Minister either knows what the definition of a holiday in the regulations is going to be, or he does not. Presumably he knows what the definition is going to be, because certain figures as to advantages to the tune of £600,000 and economies to the extent of £400,000 were quoted in the Second Reading Debate, and, if those figures were accurate, they could have been quoted only on the basis of a definition already determined by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know in what other way calculations could be made than on the basis of determined definition. If he has not made up his mind as to the definition of a holiday, I view the powers that he seeks to acquire under the Bill with even graver misgiving than would otherwise be the case. On the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman said:
It is clear, since we are laying down the principle that holidays will be holidays and unemployment will be unemployment, that the regulations will be drawn in accordance with that principle."—[Official Report, 28th March, 1939; col. 1918, Vol. 345.]
I have no desire to be unduly discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, but that definition seems to me to be just about as clear as mud, and if the regulations are to be no clearer than what the right hon. Gentleman called the principle, I must repeat that I view with very considerable misgiving the terms of the regulations, and that misgiving as to the authority which the Minister seeks to acquire by the terms of the Bill would justify every Member of the House, not only on this side but in the House as a whole, in supporting the new Clause and requiring that the House as a whole shall have adequate

opportunities of examining and improving the regulations whatever their terms may be.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I desire to support the new Clause. I recognise, however, that whatever Government is in office the Opposition generally put forward a proposal such as this, and it depends on which side of the House one is what line one takes with regard to this matter of regulations. I remember that, when I was on the opposite side of the House, I went into the Lobby against my own Government to try to get the principle embodied in this Amendment carried. On looking back, I do not know whether I was altogether as wise as I thought I was on that occasion, but the issue here is somewhat narrower, and there is in all quarters of the House a recognition that this process of government by regulation which has grown up in recent years has very many faults. It has its conveniences, especially for harassed Ministers, but there seems to be a general recognition in the House that there is something wrong with the present practice. It may be that the old leisurely legislation of days when problems were not so complicated as they are to-day allowed of more examination by the House of Commons of specific pieces of legislation, and I dare say a certain amount of regulation and order is necessary in connection with our legislative machinery to-day. There is, however, a general feeling in the House that the present practice is not sound. The present procedure, whereby attention can be called to deficiencies in regulations by a Prayer that is taken after 11 o'clock, is not adequate.
I put it to the Minister of Labour that he should make a concession in regard to this matter. The new Clause provides an opportunity for trying out another part of the machinery of the government of the country. If it were accepted, no great harm or delay could follow, and it would provide us with a very good idea whether along this line we might be able to gain a certain advantage in the maintenance of democracy in this country. It applies only to a very limited section of the working of the unemployment insurance scheme. The present Minister of Labour thinks of himself as an open-minded person, ready to listen to argument and ready to experiment. He might give us a lead in this respect. The definitions


that will have to be made in these regulations are certainly definitions which will necessitate consultation in the House, because at present the practice in dealing with holiday periods is different in different parts of the country, and if the House has the opportunity of modifying the definitions suggested by the Minister in the light of the different experience in different parts of the country, it will be of very great advantage to all concerned.
I would remind the Minister that when the first set of regulations were made under the Act of 1934, there was a misprint in the draft originally put before the House. It was discovered by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) that a wrong word had been put in and the sentence did not make sense. But neither the House nor the Minister could amend or modify the draft, and a whole day of Parliamentary time was lost because the draft regulations had to be withdrawn and brought in again the next day with the grammatical error corrected. That showed that our rigid system is a wrong system. There is no doubt that the people behind the Minister on his own benches do not like the present procedure, and feel that some change ought to be made, but, in spite of all the appeals that have been made to Ministers from time to time, they have always shut their eyes to the necessity for alteration. I do not know whether they are too much in the possession of their friends under the Gallery or of the civil servants, who naturally like to keep the matter as it is, because it means that in Britain, if we have not government by Hitler, we have now very largely government by civil servants. I hope that Members in all quarters of the House will insist on using this opportunity to see that the House of Commons has a more adequate say in what is being done.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. A. Jenkins: I want to add a word to the appeal that has been made to the Minister to accept this new Clause. I feel that very substantial inroads are being made into the powers of Parliament, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to see that the powers of which for so many years Parliament has been proud will be preserved. The first Clauses of the Bill extend to the Minister power to legislate by regulation, and, in

spite of what has been said about the procedure by Prayer, it means that the House has very little power indeed. During the Debate I have been looking up the book written by the Lord Chief Justice, entitled "The New Despotism," which is very closely related to the report of the Donoughmore Committee in 1932. It is significant that the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour often quoted that, and endeavoured to limit the powers of Ministers very substantially. I do not know what attitude he is going to take to-day when he comes to reply, but that report recommended that the powers of Ministers should be limited very substantially, whereas here there is very little limitation of them. With regard to this matter the Lord Chief Justice wrote:
Writers on the Constitution have for a long time taught that its two leading features are the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law.
If the Bill stands as it is, the sovereignty of Parliament will be substantially weakened, and the power of Parliament under these regulations will be very limited indeed. The Lord Chief Justice goes on to say that in the old days the power of the King to dominate Parliament was defeated, but that method has now been abandoned; and he proceeds:
In those days the method was to defy Parliament—and it failed. In these days the method is to cajole, to coerce, and to use Parliament—and it is strangely successful. The old despotism, which was defeated, offered Parliament a challenge. The new despotism, which is not yet defeated, gives Parliament an anaesthetic. The strategy is different, but the goal is the same. It is to subordinate Parliament, to evade the courts, and to render the will, or the caprice, of the Executive unfettered and supreme.
That, I think, sums up the position of this Debate to-day. It hands over to the Executive supreme control. That, in my judgment, is wrong; and I hope every Member of this House will try to preserve to Parliament the liberties and rights to which so many centuries of battle have been given. I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of his attitude with regard to the Donoughmore Committee. He did, time after time, support the recommendations for the limitation of the powers of Ministers, and I hope that he will be consistent: that he will abide by his own recommendations and agree to accept the Amendment.

6.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I assure the lion. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) that I will not attempt to evade my responsibility in answering any charges that may be brought against me for inconsistency, though I think I should be less than human if I failed to point out that when I once sought to limit the powers of Ministers I was not a Minister myself. The two hon. Members who have spoken have drawn attention to what they regard as a general desire on the part of the community to see that Parliamentary responsibility and powers are not abrogated. With that I entirely agree. There is also a desire on the part of the community, and not least on the part of hon. Members who have spoken to-day, that social reform should go on. It would be rather ironic if, owing to a quite proper desire to see that Parliament does not lose its control, hon. Members succeeded in limiting the powers of my right hon. Friend or the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee in such a way that improvements were rendered impossible. Hon. Members must see this problem in the proper proportion.
I will endeavour to describe the various checks and safeguards which make this procedure proof against the improprieties to which I recognise I did, at the time of the Donoughmore Report, draw attention in this House. There are two forms of regulations provided for under this Bill. The Minister may make regulations for determining whether or not the insured contributor is on holiday and whether payments which he has received have been made in respect of the holiday. It is my right hon. Friend's intention to issue these regulations about October. We hope that that will be possible. It is not intended that they shall become operative until T8th January next year. These regulations, as the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) must recognise, involve a great variety of different circumstances and conditions, an infinite variety, which it is almost impossible to conceive as being properly dealt with within the form of a Parliamentary Bill or the ambit of a Parliamentary Debate.
There is also the second set of regulations, which are not so important as the first lot, to which I think I would be in

order in drawing attention. They arise on the Amendment which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend to insert certain words at the end of Clause 1, page 3, line 2. This is to meet a special case. If that case was not met a number of people might suffer. It is our intention, when this Bill becomes an Act, that those regulations should be made at once. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) wants, instead of the normal procedure, a new and special procedure to be followed in this case. He wants the regulations to be brought before Parliament and to be subject to full Parliamentary control. I would draw his attention to the report of the Beveridge Committee, which, for reasons that I wholly understand, was not quoted by any hon. Member who has spoken. The Beveridge Committee knew the difficulty of defining holidays. The same difficulties as confronted them confront the Government at the present moment. If the hon. Member for Dundee or any other hon. Member will turn to the Beveridge Committee's report on Holidays and Suspensions in relation to Unemployment Insurance, they will find that on page 15, in paragraph 32, these words occur:
The principle is clear and should now be embodied in the statutory conditions defining unemployment. But the application of the principle to the infinitely varying conditions of industrial life involves questions of detail for which some flexibility of procedure is required. Legislation on the subject referred to us—and some legislation is obviously needed—should take the form of laying down the general principle that holidays are not unemployment, while leaving details to be worked out in regulations, to be made by the ordinary procedure, involving report by ourselves after receipt of representations from employers and workpeople.
When the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) suggested that what was in fact going to happen was that civil servants were going to have unlimited control, and when the hon. Member for Pontypool suggested that it was only my right hon. Friend who would have this responsibility, they lost sight of the important fact that the regulations will go before the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee. My right hon. Friend will put up the draft to the committee, and in this procedure it would be foolish to deny that the help of officers of our Department will be of great benefit. The draft is put up to the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee. They then publish a notice and ask for com-


ments and evidence. All sorts of interested parties will be called upon to give their evidence if they wish. The hon. Member for Dundee can go and give evidence himself. It is no disparagement of the hon. Member to say that the evidence of experts who are vitally affected or who are responsible to people who are vitally affected has a value that is the real justification of this procedure.

Mr. Foot: I am very anxious to follow the hon. Member's argument. The argument, if I understand it properly, is that all sorts of outside organisations, representing employers and employed, are to have a hand in framing and drafting the regulations, but the only authority which is to have no hand in it is the House of Commons.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member cannot get away with that. That is not so at all. I merely mention this to show that Members of the House of Commons have their normal right as citizens to go to the committee and give evidence, in their capacity as ordinary public-spirited citizens. At a later stage the House of Commons will have full power of consideration and control.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the hon. Member say—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: After about four more sentences, when I have finished this particular argument, I will give way to the hon. Member. When the committee has obtained evidence it will report to my right hon. Friend, and he will make regulations. It is true these regulations will come into force at once; and it will not be to the disadvantage of recipients of unemployment benefit that that is so. The regulations will, however, come before the House of Commons. It will be possible for this House within 20 days to reject them, after a Prayer has been introduced. It is true that it may be difficult to get an intelligent and sustained discussion on a matter which has been brought before the House as the result of a Prayer, but if there is a feeling that real injustice has been done is it suggested that this House would be so neglectful of its responsibility that it would fail to remedy that injustice?

Mr. Ellis Smith: It has failed to do so in regard to the Anomalies Act.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a tribute to the way that the Act has worked. Now I will give way to the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell).

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member has, in fact, answered the point I was about to put. He has made it quite clear that, having gone through all the procedure he has described, the House of Commons has no control in regard to amending the regulations.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What I have described is the usual procedure. In this case, as the hon. Member for Dundee knows, it is our intention, after the whole of the preliminary procedure has been gone through, to make the regulations available in draft to Members of the House but not to put them into operation until some weeks afterwards, not before 18th January. In this case, although the procedure remains the same in theory, in practice every hon. Member who wishes to avail himself of the opportunity would have a full chance, during those weeks, to discuss these regulations, and an opportunity would be provided for these regulations to be rejected. I think, therefore, that it can fairly be said that there is an opportunity for Parliamentary control.

Mr. Foot: I did not follow the hon. Member when he said that an opportunity would be provided for these regulations to be rejected. No such opportunity would be provided under this procedure until they had come into force; no opportunity could be provided under this procedure.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I said there would be a period of some weeks during which the regulations would be available for Members of the House, between the time when they appear and when they come into operation. I also referred to the normal procedure of the 20 days period allowed for a Prayer. [Interruption.] I have given way sufficiently, as the House as a whole will agree. There are one or two other points which I feel I ought to bring to the attention of the House because they are germane to the arguments of the hon. Member. The regulations can say that a man or woman is on holiday or not. Since Clause 1 comes into force on 18th January—and this Clause says that, if the insured contributor is on holiday, he does not get


benefit or continuity—it follows that some of those who might under the proposed regulations not be deemed to be on holiday would suffer unless our proposed procedure were followed, and if we were to go through the whole Parliamentary performance, if I may, with respect, use the word that comes easiest to my mouth. Also, if we deal with the holiday regulations in this way, we must deal in the same way also with the other regulations to which I have drawn attention. This would, however, cause hardship. I hope, therefore, that I have said enough to suggest that the course we propose is the proper course to pursue. If not, the reason may be found not in any inadequacy of the arguments I have put forward, but rather in the morning-after realisation of the Opposition party that the Ministry of Labour yesterday presented such an unanswerable case.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: The House will be satisfied now that there will be no opportunity at all of dealing with and amending these regulations. The hon. Member was chivvied by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) about his past deeds in this matter, and he had the privilege of "meeting himself coming back" upon this particular point. He gave an answer that was typical of his frame of mind when he said, "It is all right; so long as I am here, you need not have any fear." I ask the Minister and the House to remember that I have previously said that this Bill was going to do rather serious things. We had regulations laid before us once before. It is nonsense to say that the House can influence such regulations. [Interruption.] There was a general impression that the hon. Gentleman told the House that draft regulations would be laid before the House for six weeks.

Mr. Wise: After they have been brought into force.

Mr. Lawson: When we have had regulations before they have been designed to deal with matters definitely provided for in a particular Bill, but this Bill has been introduced for the sole reason to give the right hon. Gentleman the power to make regulations to alter other Measures which have been in operation for a long time. The right hon. Gentleman has put other things into this Bill in order to gild the

pill, but the one object of introducing the Bill is to ask for regulations in order to take away some of the rights of the unemployed. The hon. Gentleman never met that point at all. He went round and round. He is developing quite a first-class technique as a Minister, but he never met this particular point. I would remind the House of an occasion when regulations were introduced and certain hon. Members opposite pleaded with the Government, who had a bigger majority than they have now, to amend the regulations. The Government said that they could not alter them. The Minister himself said so. There were signs of violence in the country. Although there were just 50 of us in Opposition, the whole country was in such a turmoil that the Minister had to come forward and withdraw the whole of the regulations. These are the facts. The Government had to withdraw those regulations because of the violence that was developing in the country. The Minister upon this important matter has put up the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to make a statement, not to meet criticism, but skilfully to avoid it. I do not know whether the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) considers this amusing or not.

Viscountess Astor: Why do you not let me alone? I have not said a word.

Mr. Lawson: The Noble Lady seems to treat this as amusing, but I can tell her that she will have some of the unemployed on her track as a result of the operation of this Bill.

Viscountess Astor: I am not afraid.

Mr. Lawson: No, probably the Noble Lady is not afraid, but I know parts of the country where she would be afraid.

Viscountess Astor: They would never make me afraid.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: rose—

Viscountess Astor: On a point of Order. Has the hon. Gentleman any right to attack me?

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Viscountess Astor: It is preposterous. I have never heard of such a thing before.

Mr. Lawson: All I can say is that, if the Noble Lady had been here during the whole of the Debate, she would have realised that this is a very serious matter.

Viscountess Astor: I have been here all the afternoon.

Mr. Lawson: The Noble Lady has no right, in face of the fact that she is clothed in fine linen and lives softly in high places, to treat this matter lightly.

Viscountess Astor: You are not in rags.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask both hon. Members please, to cease these personalities.

Mr. Lawson: I will return to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary in dealing with regulations under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman should have taken the course of consulting the House and laying draft regulations before it. The power for which he is asking is so great and will make so much difference. We shall go into the Lobby with the hon. Gentleman, if he decides to challenge a Division, in support of this Clause. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that he has made a mistake in not deciding to lay the regulations in draft.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: The fact that a backbencher has dared to get up, after the very strong protest which my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has made from the Front Opposition Bench, will be taken, I hope, as an indication of how extremely seriously we regard the matter that is before the House. Personally, I can understand the reason that has animated the right hon. Gentleman in permitting an outrage of this kind to be perpetrated not only against the House, but against the unemployed, who will suffer as a result of regulations to be imposed without this House having an opportunity of approving them. I quite understand the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman. Every Debate in this House on unemployment, or on any aspect of unemployment, makes the right hon. Gentleman more unpopular in the country. It will be a very long time before the unemployed in this country can forget and forgive certain statements which the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday, and now the right hon. Gentleman is lending himself more willingly. and, apparently, more enthusiastically than ever before, to legislation by subterfuge, and even by fraud. What hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches

have not appreciated is the fact that already, by regulation, a most elaborate penal instrument and code has been developed in the background without this House having any but a very meagre opportunity of examining and of protesting effectively against it. It has already been said this evening that, if the regulations governing the application of the means test had come before this House, scores of representatives on the Government side would not have dared to have gone into the Lobby in support of them. We have heard the right hon. Gentleman talk rather glibly about the means test, but this House has never appreciated the hurt and the humiliation of the means test outside.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue that matter.

Mr. Davies: I do not propose to elaborate it, other than to give an illustration, and I am trying to give it clearly and effectively. What evil is involved in these regulations administered by outside bodies who—and I say it deliberately—have not had the experience and the knowledge to draft such regulations and see them applied decently and humanely among the unemployed of this country. Should this House be a party to the passing of regulations in order to build up such a complicated structure as to enable the law to be made by the umpire? I can quite understand why the Parliamentary Secretary so eloquently defends this practice. We know that he has no love for democracy, no regard for constitutional government, and would like to be in a position to impose totalitarianism on the people of this country, apart from the opposition in this House. We have seen the evils which have arisen from the issue of regulations before. We have seen homes destroyed and concentration camps, misnamed as reconditioning camps, created by regulation, and we shall continue to object to any attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to impose restrictions upon the unemployed by throwing the responsibility upon outside bodies, because he knows that every Debate on unemployment in this House reveals how mean-spirited he is as far as the unemployed are concerned.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I want to take up a phrase which the Parliamentary Secretary


used when he said that these regulations would be for the benefit of the recipients. The Parliamentary Secretary did not tell the House that Clause 1 of the Bill is going to take away no less than £400,000 from these recipients in connection with holidays, but he says that the Minister, if there is power to make regulations, may ease the situation. We do not want any easing of the situation. Any alteration in the matter of holidays with pay made by regulations must not make things worse for the people. We desire that these men shall be as well off after the Clause goes through as they are at present. I was speaking at a meeting of 850 men on Sunday morning, and I put this Clause in front of them. They at once said that holidays would not in the future be linking-up days. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to laugh about it, or for hon. Members opposite to do so. They have not to put their feet under the table and live on 3s. 10½d. a day. The men at present are able to play on Good Friday—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that we are not discussing Clause 1.

Mr. Lawson: May I draw your attention to the fact that these regulations will deal with the first six Clauses in the Bill, and is not the hon. Member within his rights in discussing what the regulations will do?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be right, and I am not preventing the hon. Member discussing that point, but he was getting rather wide when he was discussing Clause 1.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: On a point of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have given all the Rulings I intend to give on this point. I have not given a general Ruling on the matter; it is a Ruling dealing with a specific point. I have merely given a warning that I thought the hon. Member was going beyond the question before the House.

Mr. Smith: The point is this. The hon. Member in adducing arguments in support of his case mentioned certain benefits which would be affected by the Clause and surely he is in order in illustrating his argument to refer to any benefits which may be affected by any regulations.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is perfectly right in doing so and I have allowed him to do so.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I am much interested in the question of holidays with pay, and the Minister may by regulations vary it. I want to make sure that in the future, after this Bill becomes an Act, a man's unemployment benefit will not be affected because the linking-up days have gone. There are linking-up days, waiting days, and continuity days. A man can play on Good Friday, that is a holiday. He can be unemployed on Saturday, that is a working day and counts for pay. He can play on Easter Monday, that is a holiday. In the past he has been able to pick up one day's unemployment benefit because the other two were linking-up days. That is to go. In the future he will not be able to do so because the two holidays are not to be regarded as linking-up days. I say that this House of Commons should have the final say in this matter. The Minister of Labour puts up the Parliamentary Secretary, who talks for 20 minutes and says nothing. I guarantee that now he has sat down he does not know what he said. Indeed, the further he went on the bigger mess he made of it. [Interruption.] I am not going to tire of telling hon. Members opposite the facts about unemployment and part-time employment. I have been through the mill. I understand it, and there is nobody who will suffer more than the miners because they are working on short time. In a pit in my division, which employs 4,000 men, the men have never worked more than four days in a week since 1926, and they have lost thousands of pounds. I hope the Minister will agree to accept the new Clause.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: A remark made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) struck me as one worthy of great consideration. He said in connection with his argument that this House should have the last word so far as regulations affecting the earlier Clauses of the Bill are concerned; that "we are the people who should decide." Is there an hon. Member who will dare to deny that the hon. Member is absolutely correct in that proposition? We are the people who should decide. I represent many men and women who are suffering from unemployment, and I do not suppose that there are


many hon. Members in the House who have not unemployed men and women among their constituents. It is their duty to represent them in this House, and they have no right whatever to divest themselves, or allow themselves to be divested, of that responsibility. Unemployed men and women come to us and ask for assistance on many questions. Many of them earnestly believe that the Member who represents them is anxious to do his utmost for them; all kinds of promises and pledges are given at election time. Hon. Members may evade their responsibilities when they come here, but there is not one who at election time has not given solemn pledges to the people, including the unemployed, that he or she would earnestly seek to represent their best interests. Here we are in a situation where something which is of the most vital interest to these men and women is to be decided outside and quite apart from the House of Commons. It is an unbelievable situation.
If hon. Members will read the newspapers they will see that Hitler has made a speech, and they will also see that the Parliamentary Secretary was and is associated with Hitler. [Interruption.] That has to be taken into account. A man cannot divest himself of his mode of thought or the interest with which he is concerned, and the fact remains that we are faced with the situation that on all questions which affect many thousands of families in this country the Minister of Labour has a Parliamentary Secretary who is a notorious Fascist. [Interruption.] I hope hon. Members will continue to call me a Communist, and certainly, I shall do my best to deserve that title. The Parliamentary Secretary has a very great responsibility in this matter, and he has made it clear that he believes in the totalitarian method of government and all that goes with it. We cannot close our eyes to that fact when considering the question of the regulations and the unemployed. It is the duty of every hon. Member to tell the unemployed in his constituency the character of the men who will be responsible for the regulations that will affect their lives. Apart altogether from the very cogent arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Hemsworth in regard to the regulations and their effect on holidays with pay, and many other

matters about which the unemployed are concerned, I wish that hon. Members opposite could be with some of us occasionally when we are sitting in working-class homes and the men and women there are talking to us about the regulations and asking us questions about this, that and the other thing.
Do hon. Members opposite, who have been born, fortunately or unfortunately, as the case may be—for when I look at some of them, I realise that the conditions into which they have been born has been a calamity not only to themselves but to the country — into such a different condition from that of the unemployed, ever think of how these men and women are harassed and of the agony of mind which they have to endure because of the character of the regulations? I know that many of the men who have the responsibility for operating these regulations are in every sense humane men, trying to do their best in the limited conditions under which they are working. Occasionally, I have been to them and I have found that there are many of them who would willingly and gladly tear up the regulations that they are at present operating without having any new regulations to operate. But I can remember others who make use of the opportunity that is given to them by the regulations of playing the part of little Napoleons in their areas. Of course, if one looks at the Minister of Labour, one can understand that if the men who are operating the regulations have any desire to emulate him, then it is a case of God help the unemployed. I often imagine that I can see the Secretary of State for War posing before a full-length mirror—conscious or all the mighty services he has carried through in connection with the conscription of youth—looking at himself, and muttering, "Damn the Minister of Labour; how can he be Napoleon?" There is no doubt about the fact that the Minister of Labour has that idea in his head, for he is continually flaunting the fact that he has been in his job so long—so different from the others fellows round about him—and has been reducing unemployment, and that there is now only a hard core, and so on, forgetting the fact that over 1,000,000 are unemployed for short periods at a time, which means that nearly 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 people in this country are completely lacking in security. They are in work one week and out of work the next.
It is these 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 people on whom the regulations are to be imposed. The regulations will not merely affect 1,500,000 people; these 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 people will be affected by them. Yet hon. Members behind the Government, the robot majority, simply walk into the Division Lobby and vote away their responsibility. Surely, that is not going to continue without end. Surely, the time is coming when hon. Members will realise what is happening, and take up the task that has been placed upon them as a result of the vote at the General Election, and carry out the pledges which they gave then. How many hon. Members opposite, at the last Election, gave pledges, not to abolish the means test, but to ease it? There is scarcely an hon. Member opposite who did not give a pledge at that time, but the regulations were of such a character that they could do nothing after they had given their pledges. Let hon. Members go to any constituency and read the Election literature that was issued and the reports of the speeches that were made. I do not suppose that there were half a dozen hon. Members opposite who did not at that Election agree that the operation of the means test was far too harsh and that something would have to be done to ease it; but the regulations were there, and hon. Members could do nothing. [Interruption.] An attempt is being made to distract my attention by an hon. Member who is a notorious seeker after publicity, but I do not intend to be distracted.
I come now to another question. Hon. Members opposite took the responsibility of supporting the conscription of the youth of this country, the lads of 20. Many of these lads are unemployed now, and many thousands of them will be unemployed after the six months of service are over. I ask hon. Members opposite whether they are going to do their duty by these lads towards whom they have taken that responsibility? When these lads finish their six months' service and come out, they will be faced with these regulations. Are hon. Members opposite going to say to them, "We are calling you up for service to the country, we are calling you up, if need be, to die for the country, but when your training is over, we are not concerned about what happens to you; we are going to leave the regulations to the Minister of Labour and Franco's pal, who is assisting him; we are going to leave the

regulations to them, and not interest ourselves in what the regulations will be." I think that would be in every sense of the word, not simply a dereliction of duty, but a criminal dereliction of duty on the part of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Kirkwood: But they are criminals.

Mr. Gallacher: That is a remark with which I can agree wholeheartedly, but no matter how criminal they may be, there is always a crime at which even the worst criminal may hesitate, and this is a case in point. I put the matter straight to hon. Members opposite. On that ground alone of the calling up of these lads—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must warn the hon. Member that in my opinion a great deal of what he has been saying during the last few minutes has been irrelevant.

Mr. Gallacher: I would like to know from you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is irrelevant to suggest that if hon. Members opposite have a responsibility towards these lads who are being called up, they also have a responsibility towards them when they finish their training. Who can tell what may happen within the next six months? These lads may die for their country, or they may be unemployed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I ask the hon. Member to take note of the warning I gave him just now, and if he persists in going on with this kind of irrelevant remarks, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask hon. Members opposite whether they are prepared to allow the responsibility for shaping the regulations that will affect the lives of thousands of lads of this country, for whom they have taken a great responsibility, to pass out of their hands. Are they going to say to these lads, "We do not care what happens to you?" Of course, if the regulations are very bad and cause very great hardship, hon. Members opposite will give a great deal of sympathy to the people affected; because one always finds that the one thing we can get is a ready flow of sympathy. But when a man is unemployed, when he and his wife and children have to live on the fare of the unemployed, when they are borne down by harsh regulations, sympathy is not of very much use. Good regulations are of much greater value


than sympathy. If we want to get good regulations, which can be relied upon to protect the interests of those who are affected by them, then the regulations should be discussed and decided in the House. That is not going to happen Hon. Members on this side are asking only that Parliament and hon. Members should accept the responsibility that was taken on at the General Election. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth said, we here are the people who should and must have the last word. Do not let us hand over the regulations to some particular group of bureaucrats. Do not let us leave these people to be harassed and worried as they so often are, until they are in a condition almost bordering on insanity in many cases. I have met many people in whose cases continual worry has led to a state of complete un-settlement of the mind. It is a terrible thing that people can be harassed and worried as they often are in this country, especially by regulations regarding unemployment. I remember an experience that I once had in a Welsh village. I was going to a house there, and in going down the street, I noticed women standing at the doors of several houses. I had a portfolio under my arm as I walked down the street, and suddenly realised that the women had disappeared from the doorways. [Interruption.] I am talking about the regulations.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member is addressing that remark to me, I must ask him to discuss the Clause before the House.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to give an instance of how the regulations

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member, in doing so, would do well to remember the three warnings that I have given him.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to give an example of how the regulations work in order to impress upon Members the necessity of taking responsibility for controlling them. When I got to the door of the house to which I was going the woman came out, but I had the greatest difficulty in getting her to talk to me because she thought I was the means test man come about some regulations, whereas I wanted to see her husband on entirely different business. We should

have a minimum of regulations and they should be considered here in the House, and every Member should take the responsibility of seeing to it that he is considering the position of his constituents according to his election pledges. He should not simply give automatic support to the Government, but should make certain that by his action in the House he is doing everything possible in the interest of the unemployed in his constituency. It is not simply the great and the wealthy whom we represent. It is not simply the big organisations. We have to take into account and give the most consideration to those who are the hardest hit in the struggle for life—those who have been suffering from the greatest adversity. I ask hon. Members opposite to support the new Clause so that when the regulations are drawn up they will come before the House and it will be our responsibility to see that they are of such a character as to make things as easy as possible for the unemployed.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: I should be false to my conscience and judgment if I did not say a few words on this matter. I think the new Clause is right, but I regret the speech we have just heard. The hon. Member has done his very utmost by his extravagant statements to obscure the real issue, which is to me the sovereign rights of Parliament. Only a few days ago I uttered my protest against bureaucracy in excelsis on a Private Member's Bill dealing with coast erosion. There have been Kings and Queens who have desired to do what the bureaucracy of the day desire to do, and they have paid very heavily indeed. When one talked about the divine right of Kings we cut his head off to stop his arguing about it. That was the end of him. He was not able to continue the argument. But what amazes me, too, is that from those benches there should be standing up for Liberal principles the very last people in the world to do it, especially a Communist, who cannot believe in the Liberal principles which have made this country great. If the present Minister and his colleague were always to remain in Office, I should be quite easy about it. This is precisely what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said he would do when the Labour party came into power.
He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he said he would take certain powers and if necessary, by implication, that he would close Parliament.

Sir Stafford Cripps: I will correct the hon. Member as he is wrong. What I suggested was that regulations should be under the close control of the House of Commons, that they should be capable of amendment by a committee of the House in order to expedite procedure, and that no regulations should be made which were not capable of amendment by the House.

Mr. Magnay: I am very glad that I was wrong, and I have no doubt that careful note will be made of that interjection for future purposes at general elections. Certainly I shall. I will never agree to the powers of Parliament being filched away by any bureaucracy, however good. Neither expedition nor any other excuse is good enough for me. We must have the right to say whether we will amend them. It is required of stewards that they be faithful. I am not going to agree, in spite of my friendship and loyalty to the National Government, to these inalienable rights being taken away from Members of Parliament. As trustees for those rights we must have the power to amend if we so desire. If we do not, that is our business, but we must have the right.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: There is a matter that I should like to put to you, Sir. I am not sure whether it is a point of Order, but the Minister referred to questions put from the Chair and votes of the House on these regulations in a contemptuous way as Parliamentary performances. I think it is worth while that attention should be called to that, especially in view of the well-known outlook of the Minister in question. [Interruption.] I do not think it is a waste of time.

Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. Is a member on the Government Bench entitled to interrupt another Member and accuse him of wasting time?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I do not think it was an observation of an unusual kind or that it interrupted the hon. Member.

Mr. Buchanan: Is it not extremely bad taste for a man who is more responsible for waste of Government time than anyone else, the chief Whip, to make that interjection?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not appeal to me on that question of taste. I have intimated that I saw no reason to interfere.

Mr. Benn: What is and what is not waste of time must always be a matter of controversy, and I make no complaint about that, but I do make serious complaint that, for the first time, as far as I know, in recent years, a Minister has thought fit to describe the processes of this House as Parliamentary performances. If it is possible that any comment could be made from the Chair on a remark which I think disrespectful to the House I wish it could be done. If not, I shall be satisfied with having drawn attention to it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The difficulty in the way of any observation from the Chair on the point, is that the right hon. Gentleman is too late in raising it: he should have done it at the time. The question of the objectionable nature or otherwise of the word "performance" probably lies in the mind of the listener rather than in the user of the word.

Mr. Benn: I am well aware that there is a practice in the House by which it can be moved that words be taken down. The Parliamentary Secretary, when making his speech, repeatedly refused to give any Member an opportunity of intervening.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: We sat for many hours discussing the regulations under the principal Act. The point, as I see it, is that the Minister is seeking to legislate outside Parliament. I challenge the Government with deliberately attempting for the last six or seven years to deprive the unemployed man of his political rights. The imposition of the means test was primarily for that purpose, and the regulations made it practically impossible for any unemployed person to ventilate his grievances properly in Parliament. The only way by which these matters can be debated is upon a


Prayer after eleven o'clock at night. We may debate them until one or two o'clock in the morning, as we have done in times gone by, and although it may be the desire, as I think it is now, of a large number of Members to amend them, it is impossible under such procedure for any Amendment to take place. Everyone in the House welcomes the innovation of holidays with pay on a large scale. It is possible for the Minister to issue regulations which will substantially militate against the success of something which everyone in the House, I am sure, appreciates. The House will never have the opportunity again of amending anything pertaining to the regulations unless they indicate now in the Division Lobby that they are opposed to the Minister obtaining these powers.
Harsh words have been used against the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know whether he is in the same frame of mind now as when he used to speak from below the Gangway, but he will realise that we have cause to suspect his political predilections. We hope that he will learn, as he gets older, the value of Parliamentary government. I hope he will endeavour to learn how the powers of Parliament are slowly slipping away to the executive; how the executive is growing more and more powerful, while we are legislating through all kinds of boards such as import boards. Slowly but surely we are introducing something in this country which good Parliamentarians abhor. It is a phase of Fascism without any parades of the troops. We are taking away from Parliament its powers and handing them over, in some cases, to boards of non-elected people who are not answerable to the electorate for their conduct. That is what these regulations imply. All the time individuals can be selected by the Minister to administer matters which concern the lives of millions of people, and those to whom these powers are handed over, are not answerable either to constituents or to this House. That is something which I feel certain most hon. Members do not welcome, if they are in reality Parliamentarians.
I would not care to speak disrespectfully of Members of this House, but during the eight years that I have been here, I have heard many of them ad-

vocating vested interests. I have seen the introduction of tariff reform and all the rest of it. I have heard special pleading for all kinds of vested interests. I have seen Parliamentary government slowly becoming disreputable. But the one class who have not a vested interest are the unemployed. They are absolutely defenceless. They are not organised in large numbers. Each unemployed person has to depend almost entirely upon his own Member of Parliament to ventilate his grievances. Unless provided with the opportunity of not only ventilating their grievances but obtaining some consideration in these matters which concern their interest, the unemployed in this country will be obliged to take other courses, and the last thing in the world that hon. Members would desire to see done by the unemployed or by any other body of people who are suffering hardship is the adoption of measures other than the legitimate means of ventilating their grievances through this House.
For that reason I support the volume of opinion which has been expressed indicating that most Members are not satisfied with the procedure which it is proposed to adopt in relation to these regulations. I hope the Minister will reflect again. It is no use for him to talk about old Radical days. I remember when he sat here below the Gangway. I have watched him looking up towards the Press Gallery, perhaps seeking inspiration for those interjections which he continually made in those days. I can still see him doing all those things. But I trust he realises that the last vestige of Radicalism is being destroyed by seeking the power to issue such regulations over the heads of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman has not passed right over to the other side, I trust he will reflect again and that most of the back bench Members on both sides will indicate in the Division Lobby that they are prepared to scrap for their Parliamentary rights, particularly when it also means fighting on behalf of a defenceless class of people like the unemployed.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: This new Clause has now been under discussion for over two hours and we have succeded in inducing two Government supporters to declare themselves in favour of it. I wonder how many hours it will be necessary to discuss


it until we have won over a sufficient number of Government supporters to ensure success in the Division Lobby. If the procedure proposed by the Government merits the condemnation that has been heaped upon it this afternoon, then any action to prevent it being carried in this House would be justified. It would merit the continuance of this discussion right through the night that is before us. It would merit a determination here and now on the part of the Opposition, to continue every day and on every Bill that comes before the House, the utmost possible resistance. If what we say be right, then all our efforts at opposition are fully justified. If this is Fascism, a thing which we all condemn and which we hope will never be established fully in this country, if this sort of procedure is undermining Parliamentary institutions and custom, then there is nothing from which we should keep our hands, in our endeavour to prevent it.
What have we before us? A very simple case. A system of holidays with pay has been introduced in a number of our industries. Because the principle of holidays with pay has been accepted in several industries the Minister of Labour at once asks, "How many times and at what periods of the year may a man become unemployed so that we can compel him to use his holiday pay in lieu of unemployment benefit?" That is the sum and substance of the Government proposal. How many times a year can the Minister rid himself of responsibility under this system? He can do it apparently five times in the year, or even more. There are miners in South Wales and no doubt in other parts of the country who have already, this year, been deprived of holiday pay by the Minister. They have been unemployed once or twice this year already and their holiday pay has been utilised in lieu of unemployment benefit. The only suggestion put forward in an attempt to justify this matter being taken out of the hands of Parliament is the suggestion that there will be such an infinite variety of conditions throughout the country in relation to this matter, that Parliament could not deal with them. I ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to give the House some estimate of this so-called "infinite variety" of conditions? Are there 100 different sets of conditions to be contemplated? That would not be an infinite variety. Would

the Minister care to suggest that 100 different sets of conditions would arise under this scheme of holidays with pay?
Whatever the number may be, even if you follow the procedure which has been outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister himself will make the first draft of what he considers to be necessary to meet this infinite variety of conditions. With his permanent staff and his advisers he will analyse these various conditions and arrive at certain conclusions and send a draft to the Statutory Committee and then that non-Parliamentary body will notify any interested parties. What does that mean? It may be asked what is Parliament doing? What are Labour Members doing on these benches? What do the working class send us here for when they are now to be invited to send other representatives to another body to deal with this matter.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member privileged to walk about the House trying to create a disturbance while another hon. Member is speaking?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was not aware of any circumstance of that kind.

Mr. Mainwaring: Here we have a situation in which the Minister, instead of submitting his draft regulations, his considered judgment of what will meet the circumstances of holidays with pay throughout the country, to this House, proposes to submit them to another body. Why not submit them directly to the judgment of this House, since he has already done his job in arriving at these conclusions? But no—presumably that is no longer the privilege of the House of Commons. This matter is to be submitted to an outside body, a Statutory Committee whose members have less experience of the industries of this country than the Members of this House. Then what of the trade unions who will be directly interested? It is folly to talk about the employers' association being interested. The trade unions and the workmen who are not organised—they are the people who will be interested in this and they are to be invited from the length and breadth of the country to send representatives to this committee. Then when the committee have finished their investigation and considered any representations made to them, I suppose they will report


back to the Minister with any suggestions which they have to make.
Once again the Minister will have to revise his own job. Is he to admit that he has been wrong in certain particulars? Even if he does admit that he has been wrong in some respects, and modifies his original draft, by the time it is laid on the Table of the House it will have become operative in the country. When the matter comes before the House, on an occasion when a Prayer may be urged against the regulations, will the Minister undertake to say that the Whips will not be put on by the Government and that supporters of the Government will be free to vote against these regulations? The regulations will then have been weighted by the authority of the Minister and the discipline of the party opposite will ensure their acceptance. Neither in practice nor in theory can the House of Commons vary the regulations in the slightest degree.
There is no justification in the circumstances for going outside the experience of Members of this House in regard to these matters. I am sure the Minister will at least concede me this point. Throughout all the years of administration of unemployment insurance in this country his Department has received valuable advice and guidance from hon. Members on these benches and from our colleagues in the Labour movement throughout the country. Our experience I think he will agree has been of value to the Ministry of Labour during all these years. In discussing these regulations it is certain that the Minister would receive infinitely more valuable advice from hon. Members on these benches than from any other part of the House, because of our knowledge and experience and our close contact with the industries concerned. We know, now, every detail of the circumstances in which holidays with pay are likely to be made effective. Why not, therefore, submit the draft regulations, which the Minister I am sure has already in mind, immediately to the consideration of Members of this House? Let us examine them and hammer them out here and now.
Is it not our experience in this House that on practically every Bill which comes before us, minor Amendments and modifications have to be made in the original

draft? In the Military Training Bill, as it was first introduced here, how many minor Amendments proposed from this side of the House were accepted by the Government? It was quite a large number, thereby admitting at once that some measure of wisdom at least can be put forward on occasion from this side. They accepted them as being well intentioned and likely to improve that Bill. Is it not likely that the same thing could happen with these regulations? Here is an example of the very basis of democratic institutions being undermined. What does democracy mean in practice unless it be the right to express your opinion and pursue your interests in common with others at a common meeting place? If the actual work of drafting regulations is to be done outside this House, the day is not far distant when I shall expect the Cabinet to introduce a Measure imposing power upon themselves to issue a regulation stating when this House shall be called together. If each Department in turn is to be handed over to a non-Parliamentary committee—unemployment assistance committees here, the Unemployment Insurance Board there, some tariff committee in a third place, and so on—one by one, the actual administrative work of this House will go outside altogether, and sooner or later we shall come to the end of that passage, and Parliament itself will need only to meet as and when a Minister calls it together to inform it, once in two or three years, what he has done in the past and what he will do in the future.
If our fears in connection with this policy be rightly founded, anything and everything we can do to obstruct the business of this House is thoroughly justified. The damnable part about these regulations is that they define the conditions not only under which men shall receive benefit, but under which they shall not receive benefit, and if granting this power to the Minister will enable him to define conditions which will prove additionally hard on the unemployed, I say the Members of this House, whatever their views about constitutional practice in the past may have been, can have their sincerity put to the test. Do they mean that- they are proud of the British Constitution? One hon. Member talked about the Liberal party as being the party that introduced British greatness in the past. Probably the Members opposite


would claim that Disraeli and the Conservatives did the same thing. I am not concerned about which of the two robber parties laid the basis of British history and glory in that form. What I am concerned about is the tendency of present-day policies and what they may foreshadow for us in the future. Do these tendencies mean increased liberty or a reduction of liberty for ourselves? We fear that they are against the retention of our present-day liberties, reducing the privileges of the average citizen of this country, and I am prepared to say that anything and everything that can be done to obstruct that should be done, even if it means rousing the country once again into the mass demonstrations which we had in connection with the unemployment regulations on a previous occasion.
I think it can easily be done, if we once send out the cry from this place to-day—I am quite prepared to do it—to the working classes of this country. Whatever may be the real amount of danger in this one set of regulations, we must not consider them by themselves, but as one set of regulations in conjunction with several preceding sets, and we must consider the possibilities of this policy being continued in the future in other directions. Therefore, I hope hon. Members who have listened to this Debate will be able to prevail on those who have not heard it. It is, perhaps, the unfortunate thing about the democracy of this House that so many of us occasionally vote without having heard the subject upon which we vote discussed, and if the Minister would introduce a regulation compelling every Member of this House who had to vote on a given subject to listen to the Debate upon it, it would meet with our approval. But until then I am certain that we should resist the present tendency to the utmost of our power.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I have listened to most of this Debate, and I understand that the point put from this side is that before any regulations are made a draft of the regulations should be laid before the House, that the House should be able to discuss them, and that after that the regulations should be laid. The Parliamentary Secretary said the regulations would be laid before the House for five or six weeks, but that the views of Members of

this House would not be entitled to be heard on those regulations. Outside organisations might come to the statutory committee and put their views before them, and the committee would then come to a decision on the regulations. With the other Members on this side and with one or two opposite, I want to say how strongly I am opposed to such a policy. I believe that before these regulations are made they should be submitted to this House, which should have an opportunity of considering them and passing any comment upon them which it might desire to make. Again and again during the time that I have been a Member of this House I remember regulations coming before the House after 11 at night, and the House being unable to amend them, but having to accept them as they are or to reject them altogether, with the result that while there might be some good in them, Members felt themselves hampered because they did not want to destroy that good part of them. Therefore, in order to get the good part, they had to accept the bad as well.
I want to ask what these regulations are to be made for. They will be important regulations. This Clause is a dangerous Clause, but its danger will not be recognised fully until after the regulations are made and the Bill is passed. When the unemployed realise the danger, however, I am certain that there will be a storm in the country and that things will not be taken as quietly as they are being taken to-day. Under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) of this Clause the Minister may make regulations to deal with insured contributors, and under paragraph (b) with employed contributors. I have been connected with the working classes all my life and with national health insurance ever since it started, and I have taken an interest in unemployment insurance ever since it started, but if anybody were to ask me what is the difference between an insured contributor and an employed contributor, I am bound to confess that I should be at a loss to give an answer. Yet the Minister proposes to make regulations to deal, first, with insured contributors and, secondly, with employed contributors. Then the regulations will deal, under paragraph (c), with "payments received by an insured person." What does that mean? I am certain that no one in this House clearly


understands what it means, and before we agree that any of these regulations should be made, we should understand what is meant by these paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
It is not only the statutory committee and the Minister who will make regulations, because in Sub-section (3) the Minister of Health also is given power to make regulations. I do not suppose they will be made by him and laid before the statutory committee. I think they will be made off his own bat, and before we agree to that we should understand what is meant by the Minister of Health making regulations in this connection. Then, in Sub-section (4) there is a regulation that absolutely puzzles me. It states:
(4) Any such regulations as aforesaid may be made so as to apply either generally as respects all insured contributors, employed contributors or employed persons, or as respects any particular insured contributors, employed contributors or employed persons, or any class or classes thereof.
What does that mean? There is no Member of the House who understands what that means, and before we agree to the making of any regulations, even by the statutory committee, it is necessary that the Minister of Labour should take a hand in this Debate. The Parliamentary Secretary simply left us in a more difficult position than we were in before he spoke, and I think the Minister should take a hand in this and tell us just what is meant by this Sub-section.
These are very important regulations for the working classes of this country, because, among other things, they will deal with holidays. I know that the new holidays may be the cause of this Bill, but these regulations will deal also with the old holidays, and in the county of Durham we feel very strongly in regard to the old holidays, because we have had the old holidays, and they have counted for continuity purposes, and we are very anxious that nothing should be done to rob us of those old holidays. When the Parliamentary Secretary spoke I hoped he would have had something to say in regard to the old holidays, and especially I thought he would try to relieve some of the fears in the minds of hon. Members on this side in regard to them. In the county of Durham we have had eight holidays in the year to count for continuity purposes. We assume that these new regulations

when they are made will sweep away the right of the workmen to count those eight days as waiting period for continuity purposes. If the new regulations sweep the old holidays away we shall be in a far worse position under the Bill than we are now. We would much rather stay as we are. Not only do Good Friday and Easter Monday count for continuity purposes, but in Durham County it is found by the colliery owners better in many cases not to work the colliery on Saturdays, so that the men are idle on Good Friday, Saturday and Easter Monday. Thus there are three days counted for continuity purposes, and the proposal is to sweep away all the privileges the Durham miners and other miners have had in regard to holidays.
The Minister proposes to make regulations to deal with the new holidays, and he is to blame for the necessity of these new regulations and for the Debate which has taken place to-day. But what we proposed to the Minister was a simplification. We said that if a man receives pay during his holiday he is not entitled to unemployment benefit, but if he does not receive pay he is entitled. In many cases a man may leave one colliery and go to another and may not qualify for his holiday pay, so when his holiday is taken he receives no pay and no unemployment benefit. The Government ought not to make things worse than they are now, and that first Sub-section could have been simplified if the Minister had added the words "with pay." Then a man would know that if he received pay he was not entitled to unemployment benefit, but if he did not he was entitled. Nothing could have been fairer than that. But the Minister says neither one thing nor the other. He says regulations will be made laying down when the man is to receive unemployment benefit if he is on this new holiday.
But when it is proposed that the regulations shall be sent to the Statutory Committee, that is a proceeding that leaves me gasping. I could have understood it if the Minister, as we at first thought, had been going to make the regulations himself. The Minister said he was going to make them, but now the Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the Minister is simply going to draft regulations and submit them to the Statutory Committee, and that body— one that is not always favourable to the


unemployed—is going to draft them, and the House of Commons will be bound to accept them. Like the Anomalies Act, that is a thing to which we can never agree. Personally, I am opposed to regulations, but, if they have to be made, there is no justification for giving the power to this outside body. It may seem an important concession to say that the trade union organisations can present their views before the Statutory Committee, but that is taking a power which ought to rest with this House, and until this House has the power to discuss the draft regulations we shall never be satisfied with the procedure.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Ede: This is really an extraordinary series of addresses we have had today—one can hardly call it a Debate. This Clause has been before the House since 13 minutes past five o'clock—for two hours and a-half—and only the Parliamentary Secretary has risen to oppose it. He was not very successful; in fact few speeches could have been made more strongly in favour of the new Clause than the one he delivered to us. Two other hon. Members who normally support the Government have risen to address the House, and both of them have given their most unqualified approval to the new Clause. Not a single word has been said in opposition to it, except what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am bound to say that anyone who examines the new Clause and realises the difficulties that will confront everyone in working Clause 1 of the Bill will understand the reluctance of anyone to get up in the House to oppose the new Clause.
Last year on Tyneside there was considerable difficulty owing to the way in which certain holidays were treated for the purposes of unemployment benefit. There are on Tyneside certain holidays that, I believe, are known as the Race Holidays. Men employed on the Tyneside have for many years had an arrangement whereby they take the Newcastle Race Week off, and draw pay in respect of it. The Parliamentary Secretary will recollect that last year the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward), whose constituents had been very unfavourably affected by the regulations that had been made, and other Tyneside Members put questions to him, and the very greatest possible difficulty was encountered both on the Tyneside and here. Now we

have this proposal in Clause 1 concerning the future regulations for dealing with unemployment pay during holiday periods. It is quite clear that we are going to get involved in a good many verbal subtleties that will completely mystify the plain men whose benefit will be affected. Because Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 makes it quite clear that we are going to have regulations for determining whether or not certain conditions, which are not now defined, will constitute a holiday period in respect of which pay should be received. When one reads paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) it is quite clear that regulations are going to be drawn up that will closely define the conditions that will entitle a person to draw benefits, and fine lines will be drawn so that two men in the same employment may quite easily find themselves, through some accidental circumstance of time or place, on different sides of the line that is being drawn.
The Minister may make regulations determining whether an insured contributor in the circumstances specified in the regulations is or is not to be deemed to be on holiday for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act and any regulations made under it. I know that during the last War men were "deemed to have been enlisted" in the Forces—-men who in fact never served at all; but I think it will be very difficult to explain to a man that he is deemed not to be on holiday at a time when his employer has told him that he is on holiday. The firm may very likely recognise the period as a holiday, and the regulations may define that period as not being a holiday. When we come to paragraph (b) where an employed contributor within the meaning of the National Health Insurance Act in the circumstances specified in the regulations is or is not deemed to be on holiday for the purposes of any regulations made by virtue of the next following sub-section, there again we get to this extraordinary phrase '' deemed to be on holiday." I know that some men, having spent a fortnight at the seaside with a wife and a large family, will go back feeling rather more tired than when they went, but in those cases the employers will have no doubt that they have been on holiday. Really we ought to have far better opportunities to deal with these regulations which are to define so closely and narrowly what a holiday


is, than we are to get under the proposals of the Government.
I want to deal with the attitude that the Parliamentary Secretary adopted towards the duties of this House in such matters. He used the phrase to which the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) drew attention —"Parliamentary performances." "Performances".—it is quite clear that that is how he regards the whole thing. Members of Parliament are not here to look after the interests of their constituents; they are here to go through certain "performances" at stated times, as a result of which the Minister gets his way, and nothing very serious happens to anybody except the unfortunate victim of the regulations. Those of us who represent industrial constituencies cannot shut our eyes to the fact that this matter will cause serious difficulties. The greatest explanations in detail will have to be offered to the people who will come, as the men came after the last Newcastle Race Week, and ask to have explained to them why one man in the shipyard has been able to get his unemployment benefit and another man has not. After the last Newcastle Race Week certain men found that the payments which they had received during the period when they were unemployed before the Race Week and after the Race Week were in fact used to deprive them of benefit for the Race Week and for a few days following the Race Week.
I had in my constituency men who came to see me on that point, who brought to me various computations that had been made in the Employment Exchange of their appropriate payment, and they were expecting me to be able to solve the mathematical problems presented. It was clear that only some fantastic reading of the regulations could have justified men whose circumstances appeared to be so similar receiving such different treatment. If we are going to apply that not merely to one place and its special circumstances, but generally throughout the country, the anomalies that will arise will be even greater than those that occurred last year. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to assume that that was the best of all possible reasons for withdrawing the regulations from the purview of the House. He said

that because the matter was so complicated this House should not deal with it, that it should go to the Statutory Committee, that persons should appear there and give their evidence, that the Statutory Committee should reach its conclusions on the draft regulations, and the regulations should then be brought to this House so that we might either take them or leave them.
I take the opposite view. The idea that that kind of thing should be taken away from Parliament and that we should consider only the conclusions of persons who have heard evidence outside— evidence to which we have no access—is one that ought to be continuously resisted. We have in these matters, for the people concerned, a heavy personal responsibility that we cannot avoid. It will be no answer in South Shields for me to say that these matters were settled by wiser heads than Parliament; that the Statutory Committee dealt with them. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) trained the miners of his lodge too well for them to take any such answer as that. They will say that they were brought up to believe that Parliament is supreme, and that its responsibility is specially heavy to those who find themselves confronted by the legal and verbal sophistications that will be found in these regulations. This House is the appropriate place in which these matters should be argued, at a time when the regulations are still malleable.
It is clear that the Minister intends to bring to us a set of regulations with one of which we might find ourselves in strong disagreement. They may be opposed here after eleven o'clock, and one of the arguments by the Minister will be "You may object to this one regulation but some of the others are good, and if you reject these regulations because you oppose the one, you reject the whole." That is an impossible position in which to put the House. The Parliamentary Secretary gave us no reason other than his jibe at the procedure of the House for suggesting that we should have control over these matters. The wording of Clause 1 makes it clear that the importance of these regulations will not be their general scope but their detailed application to the diverse circumstances throughout the country. If this House is to be able to deal with the pith and


marrow of these regulations, it can be done only by the new Clause which has been moved by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) being incorporated in the Bill. I share the view expressed by supporters of the Government—the hon. Members for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) and Gateshead (Mr. Magnay)—that this is another example of the way in which the sovereign rights of Parliament are being filched away. We ought to regard our responsibilities in these matters as being among the most onerous of those we have to carry, and I sincerely hope that in the Division the Government will be defeated and the new Clause incorporated in the Bill.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Ritson: I have been alarmed—not being on the Committee and feeling that one could trust one's colleagues—to find that they came down complaining of the hard-faced attitude of the Government on this Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) said, we have holidays in Durham that have been hallowed for a long time. In these regulations there is a linking-up chain within them that may be destroyed. We had one of the most glorious Debates in the House on holidays with pay. We who know the mining areas, where the men have never had a complete week's holiday —I remember when Good Friday, Saturday and Easter Monday felt like a year's holiday to me—were delighted when the House determined that if it wanted men to keep A.1 fit they must be given opportunity to develop body and mind in fresh air and recreation. But now we may have all that destroyed. Even if the old holidays are not destroyed there is this other aspect. These men are putting from their money a certain amount every week to help them to get the holiday, but they have such a job from year's end to year's end to make ends meet financially that if anything happens to operate against them the holiday is killed because they cannot afford it. I cannot understand why you want regulations when you have Acts of Parliament. Regulations to me are good laws sublet.
I am not going to say hard things about the Parliamentary Secretary as some of my hon. Friends have done. All the arrows have gone to his target, and have missed the target that has just left for its dinner. I feel that this question of holi-

days with pay is more important than mere regulations. The hon. Member says "we will put them in the Library in October." We once had some trouble with regulations before. We were promised regulations by Miss Bondfield, but when she came back the House had flitted and the inhabitants had gone. What chance shall we get in October to examine anything until we are called back in the usual way? What opportunity shall we get of considering them but a prayer? One of the best things to do in answering prayer is to answer your own. The people who sent us here sent us to see that they got a fair opportunity as citizens, and full opportunity for the discussion in this House of rules and regulations that closely affect their lives. You have the audacity to tell us that you are going to make regulations through somebody that we do not know. There is no need for regulations as long as we are prepared to sit here day and night to see that justice is done in a Bill. You did not lay down regulations for conscripted people; you laid down the law to make sure, and nailed it and riveted it. I hope the Minister even yet will give way. The Minister of Health is coming in under these regulations, and we do not know what he is going to do. I came here with great pride, and remained with great pride, in this, the greatest assembly in the world, truly democratic, and I find my hands tethered by regulations laid down by the Minister and by his refusal to give us the opportunity to discuss them in the ordinary form under the constitution. He boasted yesterday that men had got holidays with pay, and to-day he comes down with regulations that may undo everything that has been done by a Bill that everybody welcomed. I hope that somebody will have some influence on him in persuading him to accept this Clause.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: As one who, prior to coming to this House some 18 months ago, spent a good deal of time endeavouring to interpret regulations which had been made dealing with these difficult problems, I am not prepared to sit here without raising my voice against the House being deprived of the power of deciding under what conditions benefits shall accrue to the people who have paid for them. I remember an occasion when the two indi-


viduals who were members of my union came to me in a dilemma. Both had taken holidays at the same time. One of them received a week's holiday as continuity benefit in connection with his claim for unemployment pay but the other man did not receive continuity benefit. I took up the cases and discovered that one man had been on holiday in Torquay and the other had gone to the Isle of Man. The one who had been to the Isle of Man could get back to the Employment Exchange, if called upon, in less time than the one who had gone to Torquay, and yet he was unable to qualify for benefit because, under the regulations, the Isle of Man was regarded, and is still regarded, as a foreign country for the purposes of this Act of Parliament.
I contend that when an individual is called upon to pay he should know for what he is paying, and the benefits to which he is entitled ought to be laid down. He ought not to be called upon to pay an insurance premium and then find that the contingency against which he has insured is deemed not to have arisen on account of some regulation which the Minister has made and over which this House has no control. I am not prepared to hand over to other people, however admirable they may be, the job for which I am paid. If after these regulations have been made a constituent comes to ask me why he has been deprived of something to which he thinks he is entitled I shall have to answer him by suggesting that the House of Commons did not consider themselves to be fit and proper people to decide the conditions. Both we and the Minister are placing ourselves in an undignified position by refusing to accept this simple Clause, which proposes that the powers for which the House of Commons has been elected should be exercised by it.
I should have thought that the very fact that the Clause had been put down by the party to which the Minister of Labour used to belong would have induced him to accept it. He might have come to the conclusion that at any rate it was pretty harmless if the Liberal party were in favour of it and it was backed by Members who have had experience of the difficulties which have been created not only for themselves but for him. I will not say that he does not do it in a jovial sort of way, but he manages to

shuffle out of his difficulties by passing them on to those who are responsible to the individuals affected in their own constituencies. When people come to me with complaints against regulations it is no answer for me to say to them, "Well, Mr. Brown, in a nice, pleasant, agreeable way promised us that it would not happen." That is no good if it has happened.
The right hon. Gentleman would lose none of his dignity by accepting this Clause. Instead of hampering him it would help him, and I am certain it would help hon. Members, because if they had examined the regulations they would be in a better position to interpret them when their constituents came along with complaints. Who can interpret regulations which are to be drawn up in this way? We are compelled to rely upon the case law set up by the Umpire in interpreting the regulations. Instead of drawing up additional regulations we ought to determine here in Parliament what the people are entitled to. The acceptance of a proposal which was made in Committee upstairs that an individual should be entitled to reckon a holiday for which he has not received pay as a period of unemployment would have met the case, and no necessity for regulations would have arisen. I once heard a man say that the difference between leisure and unemployment was the difference between being in the streets with an empty pocket and being in the streets with a well-lined pocket. In other words, unemployment with cash is leisure, but unemployment without cash is in a real sense a hardship. If that test had been applied the necessity for this new Clause would not have arisen, nor would there have been the necessity to make these regulations. I hope that the new Clause will be carried and that a real opportunity will be given to the House of debating the regulations when they are laid upon the Table, so that we may know what is to happen to the people who are to suffer under them.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I regret that I had not the opportunity of serving upon the Committee upstairs, but I heard the stories from Members coming down about the difficulty they had had in trying to move the Minister. We are all very pleased that holidays with pay are coming. It is a tremendous social


achievement that the trade unions, the Labour party, the Co-operatives and all progressively-minded people have been able so to influence public opinion that the Government were compelled to bring in a Bill for holidays with pay. We regret that it was not a Bill which compelled holidays with pay, that the Minister did not put the "shall" into the Bill. We are not altogether satisfied, not sure whether we ought to throw up our hats, because the scheme is far from perfect, but it is a first step in the direction of securing organised leisure for the workers.
I am astounded that the Minister of Labour should come along with the proposals which we find in Clause 1. What happens with cases which come under the Unemployment Assistance Board? If there is a complaint or someone feels that he has suffered a hardship and his Member takes the matter to the Minister of Labour the latter replies "The House took the power away from the Minister of Labour and prevented him from dealing with disputes under the Unemployment Assistance Board." I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister has time and time again regretted that it is so, because if there is any man who likes to be able to sit there and look as if he were "It," it is the Minister of Labour. Not for the world would I be personal about the Minister of Labour and his Liberal days, but it is clear that in some cases a man while seeming to be progressing is actually deteriorating. Evidently he is deteriorating from those Liberal ideas that he used to hold, or he would not have put this provision in the Bill.
Visitors come to this House from my constituency and I take them into one of the Standing Committee Rooms upstairs where there is a picture on the wall showing the five Members holding an occupant of the Seat which you now occupy, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in that Chair, so that the rights of this House would be safeguarded and upheld. To-night we are fighting the battle that was fought years ago for the rights of the elected Members. A statutory committee is not an elected body. We are fighting for the right of the elected Member to have a look at the draft regulations before they are finally, inflexibly and definitely made the rule, and may be the shackle, that will define how a working man may receive benefit when

there is a question of holidays with pay. The Minister of Labour may make regulations outside any circumstances specified in the regulations. The Clause states that they may cover:
whether payments received by an employed person in the circumstances specified in the regulations arc or are not to be deemed, for the purpose of the provisions of the principal Act relating to the payment of contributions, to be remuneration paid in respect of any week during the whole or part of which the employed person was on holiday.
Probably that will be clearly defined in the regulations.
We had a circumstance in my county that was operating and which was the commencement, as the Minister of Labour knows, of the holidays-with-pay movement. We had half a week. This week, if the men have qualified—and there are fairly good safeguards as to what disqualification shall be—they are entitled to a whole week's holiday with pay. That agreement was made between the coal-owners of Northumberland and the Mine-workers' Association of Northumberland; but all the coalowners in Northumberland are not members of the coalowners' association. The result is that, if a man leaves a colliery which is not in the association and goes to one of the associated collieries, as it were, he has not been able to get an amount standing to his credit in the colliery. The Minister has very kindly produced in book form the holidays-with-pay agreements, and that was a fine thing to do, but on looking at them you will see that the employers of this country appear to have been all using the same spoon and taking the ingredients for the regulations out of the same bowl, because they are very much alike in the way they have been framed. The man to whom I referred may land at the new colliery just a week before the holidays, and he gets no holiday with pay. Certainly the mine is idle and the other workers at the colliery are getting their holiday, and because they are getting pay with it they consider that they are getting a holiday with pay. That man will have no pay. Those of us of the working class who, for years, have been—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member is not entitled to deal in detail with the question of holidays with pay, but only with the question of the regulations as it is raised in the proposed new Clause.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The same point was raised by the previous occupant of the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and when it was explained to him he thoroughly understood that these holidays were to be bound up with the regulations and that you could not speak about the holidays without speaking about the regulations. I, therefore, submit that my hon. Friend is in order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The two subjects may be connected, but the subject of holidays is not really connected with the point raised in the proposed new Clause now before the House.

Mr. Taylor: I was giving an illustration to show that while some men might get holidays with pay others would not, because they had no credits at the colliery. Some of us have had experience of idle days without pay and the misery that they bring in waiting for pay day, and we want to be able, out of our experience, to alter or to approve of the regulations. As elected Members of this House we ask that these regulations should come here for their final approval and that they should not be laid on the Table of the House in order that some Prayer might be offered and then the hordes of Gideon be summoned in, and we be asking ourselves: "What is the good of our talking? We might as well have gone with the wind." As long as I am here I shall go on putting the point that I represent our people, and that nothing shall be done which allows bureaucracy to rear its head in this elective Chamber.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I want very briefly to place before hon. Members some of the reasons why Scottish Members take a very definite stand against the attitude adopted by the Government. I have noticed anxiety on the part of hon. Members on the other side to have this question of committing political suicide ended. I warn hon. Members on the other side to be very careful, because if, by carelessness, by inattention or by blind support of the Government, they give up their rights to inspect regulations that affect the lives of their constituents they are taking a very serious step that might come very heavily upon their own shoulders in the future. This principle has been brought forward by representatives of the Liberal party, and they should be congratulated on bringing before us such an important

topic. Apart from details as to draft regulations being good or bad, the point is that you are giving to outsiders the righ to interpret your legislation and to make regulations, and you are refusing to yourselves the right, as representatives, to say whether those regulations represent your opinion or not. Hon. Members on this side of the House, particularly, are very conscious that the people outside—not only working-class men and women, but middle-class people and many people of the upper class—expect Members of Parliament, in return for their salaries, which are adequate salaries, to give them service in regard to legislation for the benefit of the country. It is not good enough for men and women who appear before public audiences, or for a Minister who represents a typical working-class constituency, to say with regard to the unemployed people who are to be found in every constituency that Members of the House of Commons shall have no right to inspect, modify or improve regulations affecting the lives of these people.
I appeal to hon. Members to hesitate before they take this very dangerous step, because it is not only an insult to the Members of this House, but an indication to the people outside that at least a section of the House is not prepared to do its duty by these people. Hon. Members may sneer, but I have in my constituency, and they have in theirs, considerable numbers of unemployed men and women whose whole social and economic life depends on the unemployment legislation that is passed by this House. Unemployment is one of the bitterest problems of the nation, and one that requires the most serious and urgent consideration. Are we to say to-day that we will pass an Act of Parliament, but will leave it to an outside body who have not been appointed by the people, who have never appeared on a platform before the people, who have never asked for their confidence, to draft the regulations that will control the lives of those who are unemployed and will decide their future so far as their conditions are concerned?
I say without hesitation, and without attempting in any way to be sentimental or dramatic, that this is an instance of Fascist legislation, and not legislation in a democratic sense at all. This appeal has been made from all quarters of the


House, by Members with very great experience, as the Minister himself has had, of this problem of unemployment. He will remember how in the past regulations have reacted unfairly against different sections of the unemployed. He will remember how the regulations that were to be imposed in 1934 were treated by the public. He himself represents a working-class constituency, where his constituents will expect him, as I and other Members are expected, to discuss fully their economic position. I am prepared, and hon. Members here are prepared, to stay all night, if the Minister desire it, to inspect and modify and improve these regulations. Hon. Members who believe that they were returned to look after the people in their constituencies are all in the same position. We are here to give our time to this urgent problem. It is our duty, and we shall be failing in our duty if we do not do so. Those who vote against this Amendment are men without honour to their constituents. They are acting a lie to their constituents, because they cannot represent them by handing over decisions affecting them to an outside unelected body. My last word of warning to the Minister is this: We have selected a young candidate in his constituency, a candidate who will take full advantage of every word the Minister speaks, of every step he takes towards refusing us our right in this House to decide the conditions of the people. If he carries on in this way, he will not be sitting there as Minister of Labour in the next House of Commons.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I should like to ask a question—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member can only do so by the leave of the House,

Mr. Griffiths: It is with regard to Sub-clause (3) of Clause 1, which appertains to National Health Insurance.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That question does not come within the new Clause that is now before the House.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry to come against you again, but surely it must come within the Clause, because it states that the Minister may make regulations as far as the Minister of Health is concerned. That is Sub-clause (3) of

Clause 1, and I would like to ask the Minister —

Mr. E. Brown: If I may, Mr. Deputy- Speaker, by your leave and the leave of the House—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I must point out that it is not in order on this new Clause to discuss what is contained in other Clauses that are already in the Bill.

Mr. Lawson: May I point out that the Minister has full power to make these regulations, and there is not really another opportunity, as far as I can see, because on Report there is no discussion on the Clause standing part of the Bill?

Mr. E. Brown: As this is an important point, may I, on a point of Order, suggest that the hon. Member might raise this point on the Third Reading, when I could answer it?

Mr. Batey: The proposed new Clause that is now before the House is very clear. It says:
Before any regulation is made under Section one or Section two of this Act the Minister shall cause the regulation to be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament "—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) was raising the question of regulations under Clause 3.

Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir, under Sub-clause (3) of Clause 1, and I suggest that Sub-clause (3) comes under the same ruling as any other part of the Clause. I would like to ask whether, in the case of a man who is entitled to his holiday with pay and who, a week before he gets his holiday with pay, falls sick, the regulation will so work out that he cannot have his sick pay, although he is entitled to it on a doctor's certificate?

Mr. E. Brown: The answer to that question is that the hon. Member is wrong. That regulation is like the regulation with regard to unemployment insurance. The question was discussed in the Committee's report whether contributions should be paid, and it was decided that they should. That decision applies also to health insurance and pension contributions, and this Sub-section gives the Minister of Health power under the Act to do for health and pension contributions what we


now take power to do with regard to unemployment.

Mr. Batey: The point is that the regulations of the Minister of Health would have to be laid before this House, so that the House could discuss them before they are made.

Mr. Davidson: Is it not a fact that the Minister himself cannot possibly know what regulation he is going to make?

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes. 130; Noes, 184.

Division No. 158.]
AYES.
[8.47 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pearson, A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Poole, C. C.


Adamson, Jennie L.(Dartford)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hayday, A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hicks, E. G.
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barnes, A. J.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Batey, J.
Jagger, J.
Shinwell, E.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Bellenger. F. J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sloan, A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
John, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Benson, G.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Bevan, A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Broad, F. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Bromfield, W.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, C.


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Burke, W. A.
Lathan, G.
Stokes, R. R.


Cape, T.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Charleton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Chater, D.
Lee, F.
Tomlinson, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Leonard, W.
Viant, S. P.


Cocks, F. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Walkden, A. G.


Collindridge, F.
Logan, D. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Cove, W. G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Daggar, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Welsh, J. C.


Dalton, H.
Maclean, N.
Westwood, J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Mainwaring, W. H.
White, H. Graham


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Day, H.
Mathers, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maxton, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Ede, J. C.
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Milner, Major J.
Wilmot, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Foot, D. M.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Frankel, D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muff. G.



Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.
Sir Percy Harris and Sir Hugh Seely.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Owen, Major G.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Paling, W.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Apsley, Lord
Colfox, Major W. P.
Errington, E.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fildes. Sir H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Findlay, Sir E.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Fleming, E. L.


Blair, Sir R.
Crossley, A. C.
Furness, S. N.


Bossom, A. C.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Boulton, W. W.
De la Bère, R.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Denman, Hon. R. O.
Gledhill, G.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Denville, Alfred
Gower, Sir R. V.


Brass, Sir W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Doland, G. F.
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H
Granville, E. L.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Bull, B. B.
Dunglass, Lord
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Butcher, H. W.
Eastwood, J. F.
Grimston R. V.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)


Channon, H.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.




Hambro, A. V.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Shakespeare, G. H.


Hannah, I. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Harbord, A.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Simmonds, O. E.


Haslam, Henry (Horneastle)
Markham, S. F.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Smithers, Sir W.


Heilgers, Captain F. F A.
Medlicott, F.
Snadden, W. McN.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Somerset, T.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Spens, W. P.


Herbert, Lt. Cot. J. A. (Monmouth)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Storey, S.


Higgs, W. F.
Moreing, A. C.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Munro, P.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Holmes, J. S.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hopkinson, A.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Horsbrugh, Florence
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S, (Southport)
Peake, O.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Hunloke, H. P.
Petherick, M.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Hunter, T.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Jennings, R.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Prooter, Major H. A.
Touche, G. C.


Keeling, E. H.
Radford, E. A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Kellett, Major E. O.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ramsbotham, H.
Ward, Lieut.-Cot Sir A. L. (Hull)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Lees-Jones, J.
Rankin, Sir R.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Welts. Sir Sydney


Levy, T.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Lewis, O.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Liddall, W. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Lindsay, K. M.
Remer, J. R.
Wise, A. R.


Lipson, D. L.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Loftus, P. C.
Rosbotham, Sir T.
Wragg, H.


Lyons, A. M.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
York, C.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Young, A. S. L. (Partiok)


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Rowlands, G.



McKie, J. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Salt, E. W.
Lieut.-Colonel Harvle Watt and
Captain Waterhouse.


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Samuel, M. R. A.



Macquisten, F. A.
Schuster, Sir G. E.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 44 of 25 Geo. 5, c. 8.)

Section forty-four of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935 (which relates to appeals to the Umpire from Courts of Referees), shall have effect as if after Sub-section (6) thereof, the following Sub-section was inserted:

(7) In any case in which leave to appeal from a Court of Referees is not granted by the chairman under Sub-section (4) hereof, the claimant may, within two months after receiving notice of the chairman's decision, make application in writing to the Umpire for leave to appeal, and the Umpire, after considering the claimant's application and the record of the decision of the Court of Referees, may give leave to appeal.—[Mr. Foot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I will endeavour to speak as briefly as possible, but this is a point to which we attach a good deal of importance. It is somewhat controversial, and it would be too sanguine of me to expect as wide a measure of support as we had on the last Clause. Let me make clear the present position under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Where a claimant is refused benefit by the court of referees, if the

court is divided or if leave is given by the court or by the chairman of the court, either at the time of the hearing or thereafter, the claimant may appeal to the umpire; otherwise he has no right of appeal at all. But there is a further provision that if he is a member of an association of employed persons—which in practice means a trade union—the association may take up the appeal on his behalf. There is this further provision, that the insurance officer, who appears, so to speak, on the other side in the court of referees, may appeal at any time. There are no restrictions on him. That appears to me a shocking provision in our law. There are two parties in a court of referees: the insurance officer on one side, the claimant on the other. I cannot at this moment think of any other case in the whole range of our law where you give to one side an advantage which you deny to the other side. I do not think that that takes place before any other court.

Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: The Customs and Excise have the right of appeal to quarter sessions against decisions made against them by a petty sessional court, and that right has existed for some 50 or 60 years.

Mr. Foot: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I think that that is probably the only case, and certainly he will agree with me that it is an exceedingly rare and an undesirable provision that you should make a distinction between the two sides as we do here. All the advantage is on the side of the officer, who is generally much better able to argue the case than the claimant. The officer is given the right of appeal if in any case the decision goes against him, but the man has no right of appeal, except in the circumstances that I have described. He has no right of appeal himself where there is a unanimous ruling of the court, and he has no rights at all if he is not a member of an association of employed persons.
I am proposing a perfectly normal arrangement which exists in other forms of courts. These courts of referees and of the umpires are courts of law. They may be specialised tribunals, but they are there to administer a very important branch of our Statute law. It is a perfectly normal arrangement in other courts that you may get leave to appeal from the court from which you want to appeal, to the Court of Appeal itself. I propose that there should be a provision of that sort introduced into our insurance law. Under the new Clause which I propose, if the claimant whose claim has been turned down by the court of referees can make out a prima facie case in his application to the Umpire, the Umpire himself will be able to give leave to appeal.
On two occasions within the last few years a proposal of this kind has come before the House of Commons, once in 1934, and on the second occasion in 1937. On each occasion it was resisted on one ground only. It was anticipated that an Amendment of the law of this kind somehow jeopardised the position of the trade unions. As I say, an association of employed persons, in by far the greater number of cases, means a trade union. There are two answers that I would make to that objection. I am not taking away by this new Clause any rights which the trade unions at present enjoy. If this new Clause is passed, they will still have the facilities that they now possess to take up cases on behalf of their members, and these members will enjoy the advantage of their advocacy. It is simply a proposal to extend the rights of unemployed men

whose claim to benefit is called into question.
I do not propose this new Clause from any sense of enmity at all to the trade union movement. In the Committee upstairs I supported a proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) that benefit should be paid in the case of a lock-out, which, if it had been carried, would certainly have strengthened the position of trade unions. None of my hon. Friends here want to jeopardise the position of the trade union movement, but the present position is flagrantly unjust. We give to one class of litigants before these courts an advantage which we deny to another class. All of them are contributors to the fund. They all contribute precisely the same amount and in precisely the same way, and yet in the one case we give the right of appeal against the court of referees, and in the other case—the case of the larger class—there is no such right. The argument is that the man has his remedy if he chooses to join a trade union. I agree that he is much better advised if he joins a trade union in any industry. I much prefer that a man should do so, but you ought not to put him at a disadvantage by Statute if he chooses not to join an association of that kind.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has said that he does not want to stop a man from getting equality of treatment. If a lawyer was not in his union would he not wish to stop him from practising?

Mr. Foot: I rather anticipated that interruption. I think that if the hon. Member will consider it, he will see that it is an entirely false analogy. Supposing lawyers were put in a special position before our courts, and it was provided in our Statute law that, when a lawyer himself went to law and was engaged in a law suit, he should have the right of appeal that was denied to other classes, that would be an analogy of the position we are now discussing. The question of allowing a man to practise is simply one of technical qualification in precisely the same way that you prevent a man who is not a qualified doctor from giving a death certificate. But here we are considering the principle of equality before the law. On the last occasion when this was discussed, in 1934, the argument was put very much more forcibly than I can.


put it by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), when, speaking in this House on 1st February, 1934, he said:
The Minister coolly comes here and tells us that out of these 12,000,000 insured persons whose rights in this Fund are supposed to be equally guarded, 4,000,000 are to have the advantage of fighting for their rights up to the highest court of the land, but that the other 8,000,000 are to have only the lesser appeals, unless the lower courts specifically give them the right to appeal to the higher court. It is not right and no amount of argument by the Minister or any amount of pressure by the Trades Union Congress can make it right."—[Official Report, 1st February, 1934; col. 663, Vol. 285.]
That is the objection in principle. There is also a very practical objection to the present system. There are areas—and I agree that it is unfortunate—where the workers are not organised in trade unions. New industrial areas are growing up, and in the last year or two we have extended unemployment insurance to agricultural workers. Again, it may be regrettable, but the vast majority of agricultural workers are not organised in any union at all. They have their union but it includes only a minority of those who are in the industry, and it is very difficult in some cases as we know for a farm worker to become a trade unionist. It is not necessarily his fault that he is not a member of a trade union, but is that a reason why we should deny him the right of appeal in this case?
Let me put another case to hon. Members above the Gangway. They will remember very clearly the trouble which took place in the last few years in the Nottinghamshire coalfield. Many of them can speak with authority on this question, but I think I am right in saying that it was rather difficult for a man in some areas to join a trade union. He could join the Spencer union. If a man was not a member of that union it was rather difficult for him to get employment in some areas. There were complaints in this House and outside of intimidation by certain colliery companies if a man joined another union. Supposing a man is put in that position, and it is made difficult for him to join a trade union, as may happen in some, cases, should he, for that reason, be deprived of his right of appeal against a decision of the court of referees.
I would remind the House of what was done here only a few days ago on the

Military Training Bill when we were dealing with conscientious objectors. It was provided that the conscientious objectors should, in the first place, go before a local tribunal, and then, if they were dissatisfied with the decision of that tribunal, they might appeal to an appeal tribunal. When that Bill was first introduced it was provided that the conscientious objector should appeal only with the leave of the court of first instance. That is to say, a very similar system was proposed to that which exists under our unemployment insurance law. There were protests from all parts of the House and none was more forcible than those of hon. Members above the Gangway, who said that it was entirely wrong that the right of appeal should be limited in this way. If it was wrong in the case of conscientious objectors it is equally wrong in the case of a claimant for unemployment benefit.

Sir Percy Harris: I beg to second the Motion.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I ought to say at once that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) was quite right when he anticipated that Members on these benches would not agree with him in this Clause as we did on the last. He was sufficiently aware of the weakness of his case that he anticipated the interruption of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths). Lawyers insist upon their rights to such a degree that they will not let a man work unless he is a member of their union. The union is known as the Devil's Own because of that very fact. I can understand the case of the hon. Member on sentimental reasons, but I cannot see what a man who is not a member of a trade union has to grumble about. He can ask for leave to appeal in case the court of referees are not unanimous and, indeed, there are certain circumstances under which he can appeal. It is as well to be blunt about this matter. Trade unionists, with great sacrifices, have built up their organisations by the payment of their pence per week, and in some parts of the country there would be no real organised wage system if it were not for the organised workers. There are people who are not in any trade union who are ready to take the benefits for which other people pay, and take them without the slightest thanks or appreciation. There are trade union


organisations into which those who are outside can enter if they so desire and thus get the benefits of the thoughtful and careful arrangements which have been made by trade unions for the representation of their members before these various tribunals. If there are any unemployed persons who still remain outside any trade union organisation that is no reason why we should go out of our way to give them special conditions.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I want to put a rather different point of view from that mentioned by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) always gets up his case with great care, but those who followed him closely in his speech will know that he has not given the whole history of this matter. It is a much longer history than the hon. Member led the House to suppose. It is not a fact that it was not until 1934 and 1937 that the matter was raised. It has been raised many times in this House and outside it before then. As a matter of fact, the present arrangement is not the original arrangement at all. It is the result of more than one concession. The question I wish to put to the House is this: Has practical justice been done by this working arrangement; and, if so, is there any reason why it should be altered? My inquiries lead me to believe that practical justice is done, and if hon. Members will read the formidable arguments used in 1934 or the Blanesburgh Committee's Re-, port of 1927 or paragraphs 492 to 495 of the Royal Commission's Report of 1932, very authoritative bodies which went into great detail on this question, they will come to the conclusion that the ground which they take is the ground which the House should take, and which, indeed, the House did take on former occasions.
I was amazed when the hon. Member for Dundee quoted the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) because I cannot recall any speech made which is more calculated to kill his new Clause than that speech. A more clear distortion as to the way the arrangement works than a comparison between 4,000,000 who have a right of appeal and 8,000,000who have not, I cannot imagine. It was a speech made in the wonderful way we know the hon. Member for

Bridgeton can make a speech, but it had no relation to the actual facts at all. The working arrangement is on this basis. It was the ground taken by the Blanesburgh Committee and the Royal Commission, that it was not possible in these cases to give an unlimited right of personal appeal because otherwise the Umpire would be flooded with a mass of frivolous and unnecessary appeals. Moreover, the hon. Member for Dundee did not appear to be quite so well informed as he should have been. If a member of a trade union asks his trade union to appeal it does not follow that the trade union always takes up his case. In fact, so great is the sense of responsibility of the men who run the trade unions that they do not always take up the case of a man, although he has a right to make an appeal. The matter is not so simple as would appear from the abstract argument of the hon. Member for Dundee. The fact is that the working arrangement does practical justice. I speak strongly on this question, because at about that time I was moved by a case which I thought was a little hard. When I went into it, I thought that technically under the law the man had not a right to appeal which he ought to have.
The hon. Member for Dundee was not quite fair in his statement about the insurance officer. He treated the insurance officer as though he were the enemy of the applicant. That is not so. Nobody would have guessed from the speech of the hon. Member that the insurance officer appeals both for allowances as well as disallowances. He is almost as often the friend of the applicant as he is the opponent of the applicant. I will give some facts to make the situation quite clear. In 1938,insurance officers appealed in a substantial number of cases. Decisions were given by the umpire on 878 appeals by them against disallowances as compared with 1,545 appeals against allowances. Therefore, the insurance officer in this working arrangement works both ways.
What has the man the right to do? He has these opportunities. The chairman himself may give a right of appeal if he thinks a point of principle is involved. That is provided in order to prevent frivolous appeals. In all cases where the


court is not unanimous, the man has a right of appeal whether he is a member of an association or not. If he is a member of an association, he has a right of appeal through it, but as I have already told the House, in many cases the association does not think the claim is so substantial that the man ought to use the association's expert knowledge to forward it to the umpire. Lastly, there is the insurance officer. As every hon. Member knows, the insurance officer is not the enemy of the claimant. He does his best to see that substantial justice is done, as is shown by the figures I have given. He appeals against disallowances as well as against allowances. In the particular case where I had thought that abstract justice was not done, I found that the position was satisfactory because the insurance officer did make an appeal on behalf of that man to the umpire. I was a private Member when my attention was drawn to that case. Now, as Minister, after having inquired into this matter and read all the evidence, I am certain that the working arrangement does give practical justice and that the long series of considered opinions given by Commissions that it is the best one are right. In 1934, after a great deal of eloquence, I would remind the House that only 20 hon. Members supported a similar Clause to that which has been moved by the hon. Member for Dundee. [Interruption.] The hon. Member is a little self-righteous. It is true that his arguments are not always wrong, but it is also true that the Front Bench is not always wrong. As a matter of fact, the Front Bench is often right. For the reasons I have given, I recommend the House to reject the new Clause.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Ks Griffith: If the right hon. Gentleman had not risen when he did, and if I had been called, I should have made the point which he has put with regard to the insurance officers, because I am fully aware that in my own constituency, in several cases which have been brought to the notice of the insurance officer, he has operated on behalf of the applicant. Certainly, I would not leave that out of consideration in dealing with this important question. Nor do I attack the general working of the appeal system. I think the right hon. Gentleman is justified in claiming that, on the whole, it works well and, in general, does justice. No system

is perfect. That does not prevent us, when we find, as I have found, that there are cases which are left out by the machinery as it exists, from trying to provide for those also. In supporting the new Clause, I am considering marginal cases which I hope are not of very great frequency, but which to my knowledge do occur. If one finds that there are cases in which under the Act a man has a good ground and thinks he ought to have an appeal, but has not that right because he does not comply with the conditions that are at present laid down, I think it is not unreasonable that, even if there are only a very few cases, one should come to the House and try to provide for them. I was rather sorry that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), for whose speeches I generally have the greatest admiration, should have tried to introduce an entirely misleading analogy. I can only think that his object was to cast some slur on the new Clause by giving the analogy of the legal profession. It would not do any good either to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee or to me, although we happen to be members of the profession, if the new Clause were passed.

Mr. Lawson: I do not think that is quite a fair interpretation of what I said. I have the greatest respect for the legal profession and for what it does. I wish that the rest of the workers were in the same position to make it possible to compel every worker to be a member of their organisation, instead of getting benefits for which they do not pay, I thought I was paying a tribute to the organisation of the legal profession.

Mr. Griffith: In that case, I will address myself briefly to the merits of the argument made by the hon. Member. If one produces an analogy, it must be one that corresponds, and the circumstances must be the same. If my hon. Friend were proposing that lawyers, because they belong to that particular trade, should have a right of appeal in certain circumstances which other people do not have, the analogy would be complete, but no such claim has been suggested, and if it were, certainly I should not be supporting it. What I am sorry about on this occasion is that the speech of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street was devoted, however much it may have been wrapped up, to restricting the rights of appeal of persons aggrieved under these Acts. If


the new Clause were carried, people would have a right of appeal—and we must be right in assuming that some of them have good grounds for doing so—which they do not have at the present moment. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street is asking that that appeal should not be given. I am sorry that he takes that view. No one can deny that that is the effect of his speech.
The question which will govern the votes of all those hon. Members above the Gangway is not whether there are aggrieved persons who have rights which might be vindicated on appeal, but whether indirectly some advantage may be gained by a particular form of organisation. Surely, it is better that we should consider these things on their merits. We should consider the right of unemployed persons who are refused benefit to get some by appeal, if they can, whether they belong to a trade union or not. Let trade unions appeal for their members on their own overwhelming merits. I recognise the tremendous advantages that they offer to everyone who belongs to them—the sense of pride which I think every man who belongs to any craft or occupation ought to have in joining in with the rest of those who belong to the same craft or occupation to fight their battles together. For all that I stand, as I have always stood for it, but it seems to me that the argument advanced to-night might be pushed very far. Why is it on this matter alone that trade unionists are to have special rights? Would hon. Members think it right, in the case of the ordinary criminal business of the courts, to say that people who belong to particular organisations should have the sole right to appeal? I am sure they would say nothing of the kind.
I think it is a great pity that we have not been able to debate this matter simply from the point of view of the right of unemployed people to get their case tested in court after court up to the highest authority. I am very sorry that a sort of background of trade union rights has been brought into this question. I am not seeking to. attack those rights, but I am speaking on behalf of cases that I know, and cases which must be repeated in a great many constituencies, where there are people who

may not have had the opportunity of joining a trade union, whose trade is unorganised, or who may through poverty have fallen out of the organisation. In any case I think it is not the best kind of lever to use to the advantage of the great trade union movement, for which I have the very greatest admiration, that there should be a kind of indirect compulsion to force men to join a particular organisation by refusing them what, apart from that question, every Member above the Gangway would recognise as being their undoubted right. I do hope that there are some Members above the Gangway who, after to-night, will go away and feel perhaps that their view on this question has not been as broad-minded as it usually is. By their refusal to-night to support this claim they may prevent any Division being taken upon it. It may not be worth while for us few here who have put forward this case to press it to a Division, but if we had had their support, which I hoped we might have had, we might have obtained for some people who are at present denied them those rights which they ought to have.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Fyfe: I should not have intervened at this moment had it not been for the standpoint which my hon. Friend has adopted in the speech which he has just made, because I feel that we ought to consider this matter on its merits, and on its merits to face the attack which has been so ably launched against it. First of all, we must realise that here we are dealing with a special ad hoc procedure: we are not dealing with the ordinary courts of law. We are dealing with a court where, it is true, there is a chairman who is generally a lawyer, sitting with lay members, and where the applicant is not allowed by the procedure. to have legal representation—a special court at which lawyers have no right of audience. Therefore, we have to consider what is a practical and at the same time a just basis for a right of appeal.
At the moment the right of appeal exists if there is a difference between the members of the tribunal. That itself, my hon. Friends agree, must cover a great number of cases. Where you have a tribunal of three or five members you do have divergencies of view between its members—you are bound to have in a certain number of cases. Then you have the provision made for any special point


of law of importance in the fact that the chairman has the right to give leave to appeal. There again you have the experience of the chairman at the disposal of the methods which prevail at the present time. Thirdly, you have the position of the insurance officer and, apart from the argument that he is entitled to a special position, we have the admitted fact—admitted by the hon. Member—that he does utilise his function in cases where he is on the side of the applicant no less than where he is on the side of the fund.
These different aspects of the matter cover a great number of cases, and one has to consider, when the applicant has these rights, what else should be given to him. The hon. Members know, probably better than most of us here, how easy it is on questions of fact that involve no principle at all, and no point of importance at all, for a disappointed litigant in the moment after the decision to say, "Well, I am going to appeal." I agree that he has to ask for leave, but I ask the hon. Members to consider what duplication, or rather what new piece of work, it is going to cause. I do not understand that there will be any less work in considering the application than substantially in a case of a final appeal.
At the present moment a right is given to the trade unions, and there again the hon. Gentlemen know that, apart altogether from the industrial function of trade unions, the trade unions play in the modern State the role of determining legal rights in important points. It is thanks, too, to the trade unions that important points are decided in many aspects of our law. That position having justified itself for the last 60 years, I suggest to the House that it is proper to leave to a body that has assisted in determining our industrial law in so many fields the right of choice in determining our law in this restricted and special field which we are discussing to-day. I want to put this before the House because I do feel that, whether we are given the opportunity of casting our votes or not, our support of the position to-day should be stated as existing on logical and proper grounds, and I suggest to the House that the grounds which I have endeavoured to put before it are logical and proper in connection with this controversy.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Hayday: I am sorry to detain the House, but I feel that something ought to be said after the speeches from the benches below the Gangway. I oppose their new Clause in order to protect the very people who, they claim, are largely victims of an adverse system. It is not so long ago that a good many of these cheap-jack lawyers, as I sometimes call them, ran round various industrial centres endeavouring to secure by a small percentage on results a clientele among those who were not attached either to their trade unions or one of the unemployed workers' associations, and I remember that representations had to be made because of that touting that was going on. Now who is to plead for the individual? This cannot be compared with a court of law. We cannot look upon these people as people who are under a charge, and who are debarred from the right of appeal. Who is to prepare their cases for them? They cannot have lawyers. By whom, then, can they be represented? Does any one imagine that those who have not been associated with industry, or attached to a trade union, or some industrial organisation, would know how to prepare a case for presentation on appeal? Certainly they would not. These people would be left like flotsam and jetsam. They might as the hon. and learned Member opposite suggested, in the moment of being turned down, knowing that there were appeal facilities, say, "I am going to appeal." But to whom can such a person go? Are they to go to the people behind the counter at the Employment Exchange and ask them to prepare a case against the exchange? Then who is to present the case to the umpire? It can only be the member himself. He cannot take a lawyer.
I am rather pleased that the Minister of Labour gave those figures which we heard a short time ago. It is purely an estimate, but I should say that not more than 50 per cent. of the appeal cases sent. by members to their trade unions are presented on appeal, after the investigation has taken place and all the particulars have been examined in the light of the actual industrial conditions to find whether there has been any misstatement or any faulty decision. But who can decide that, except those with industrial knowledge? I think it is necessary to say that, and to point out that a man can retain his asso-


ciation with an organisation by going to the lodge room and signifying his desire to retain that association. There are also unemployed workers' associations operating through the trade councils. There is all the industrial machinery. Is it proposed to lead these people to believe that the whole machinery of the exchange will be placed at their disposal if they want to appeal? Otherwise, if you do anything to strike out or to weaken these words, "associations of workers," you will open the way to association of the tout type and to people who will wait outside the exchanges and will undertake cases, as I know they have done in one or two instances, on the basis of a percentage repayment from any money that may be obtained on appeal. For that reason, I oppose the new Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption from attendance at Employment Exchange.)

If a claimant for benefit is pregnant and a medical practitioner certifies that in his opinion she is within four weeks of childbirth she may apply to an insurance officer to be exempted from the obligation of attendance at the Employment Exchange and the officer may grant such exemption for a period not exceeding ten weeks.—[Mr. Foot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the third, and I am sure the House will be glad to learn, the last of the new Clauses standing in my name. I wish to bring to the attention of the House a problem which I have found in my own constituency and which I am told exists in many parts of the country. For the purposes of National Health Insurance, pregnancy is not, of itself, regarded as a disability causing incapacity for work. A circular sent out in 1930 by the Department of Health for Scotland—and no doubt a similar circular was sent out by the Ministry of Health—contains the following passage:
Pregnancy is not sufficient, in itself, to entitle an insured woman to any cash benefit under the National Health Insurance Act. Sickness or disablement benefit can only be paid in respect of the period during which a pregnant woman is incapable of work.
It goes on to say that:
Uncomplicated pregnancy would not normally involve incapacity for work, though

during its later stages, or in exceptional circumstances, a woman might become incapable. A doctor is therefore debarred from giving a medical certificate in order to enable benefit to be claimed, unless he is satisfied, as a result of examination of the woman. that she is incapable of work.
The position arises, as a result of that ruling, that at the Employment Exchange a woman who is within a few weeks of childbirth is regarded as capable of and available for work. I understand that a woman who has been paid off by her employer on account of her condition, is none the less regarded by the exchange as being capable of work. A year or two ago, there was an Umpire's decision on a claim of this kind. The claimant was unfit for her ordinary duties, which were fairly heavy, but was capable of light work, such as knitting and light dusting and so forth. She was refused National Health Insurance by the approved society, on the ground that she was fit for several kinds of work. That decision must obviously affect a large number of cases.
In theory, a claimant of that kind would be fit to do light work, but we know that, in practice, no such light work is likely to be available for her. The position is that in theory a woman who is within a week or two of childbirth is available for work, but in practice there is little prospect that she will obtain it. It would be exceedingly difficult for the exchange authorities to send her to any employer. Obviously, she would not be the most fit person on the books and an employer might be critical of the authorities if they sent someone who was in that condition to fill a vacancy. In spite of that, although there is practically no prospect in a great many districts of a woman obtaining work during this week or two, she is, nevertheless, under the obligation, like other unemployed people, of attending at the exchange, probably twice a week.
Some objection may be raised to the actual proposal in the new Clause. I am not wedded to this scheme, and I put it forward only because I hope that it may lead the Minister to consider this matter seriously. In my opinion the best method would be for the woman within two or three weeks of childbirth to go straight on to national health insurance and not to be on unemployment insurance at all but that is a point which cannot be raised on this Bill. There


are, however, certain cases at present in which attendance at the exchange is excused. For instance, workers who go on holiday are sometimes excused their attendances. They have to be available for work, at any rate in theory. They are liable to come back from their holiday, if called upon, and to take up employment. Under my proposal, a woman in the circumstances I have mentioned, would be in a similar position. She could send somebody else to collect her money at the exchange and she herself would be absolved from attending during this period of time. If light work were available for her, she would still be under the obligation of accepting it, and we should get rid of the anomalous situation in which, in certain parts of the country, considerable numbers of women have to attend the exchanges two or three weeks before their children are born, though there is no prospect of any result from that attendance.

Mr. K. Griffith: I beg to second the Motion.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member, and we will look into the matter and see whether in fact the consequences which he has outlined do result. If he has any information to sustain that view, perhaps he will send it to us, but, frankly, we do not believe that such situations arise, and we think that under the unemployment insurance scheme and under national health insurance all possible cases are covered. The hon. Member cited the case of workers on holiday whose personal attendance at the exchange is excused. But these people are capable of and available for work, and I do not believe that women in the condition he has named could be regarded as being capable of and available for work if they are not capable of attendance at the Employment Exchange. I appreciate that he has a further point, that their attendance might be fruitless, but we do our best to pay unemployment benefit up to the last possible moment it can be clearly argued that the woman is capable of and available for work. If she is not capable of work by reason of pregnancy, and can produce medical evidence to that effect, she is, I understand, normally granted health insurance benefit, and it is the practice to deal sympathetically with such

cases. As I say, if hon. Members have any information to the contrary and will send it to us, we will look at it with interest and sympathy.

Mr. Logan: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) raised the case of total incapacity, and national health insurance is not affected there.

Mr. Lawson: We were pleased to hear the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I hope the matter is going to be seriously examined, because I must say that the methods that are employed at the present time are very often unsatisfactory.

9.48 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I have received representations on this subject from a good many women, and many of them are anxious that no change should be made. In many cases they would far rather themselves continue going to the Employment Exchange as long as they can. There is a great fear that if certain changes are made, there may be some regulation made under which they will be bound to leave unemployment insurance and go under national health insurance, and they fear that, because such a change would be detrimental to them. Over and over again, when I have discussed this matter, I have been told by these women that they would prefer to continue going to the Employment Exchange as long as possible, because otherwise they fear they will lose what chances they get at present of drawing benefit in. these circumstances.

9.49 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I realise that there is a real fear, such as the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) has suggested, in the minds of these women that they may have to leave the higher benefit under unemployment insurance and go under national health insurance, but as I understand the Amendment moved by her colleague in the representation of Dundee (Mr. Foot), the idea behind it is to prevent the women falling between two stools, as is the case at the present time; that is, that you may have a woman not being eligible for national health insurance and at the same time definitely having to go to the Employment Exchange, but who in fact ought not to go there. If the right hon. Gentleman suggests that there is a way by which we can be certain that


such a woman gets her money, I think the matter can be settled, but at the present time the conditions at the exchanges are not all that they should be, and in many cases the system means women standing long hours. It is true that the Employment Exchange people do what they can to provide them with seats, but that is not always possible. Many of our exchanges leave a great deal to be desired in regard to seating accommodation, and I therefore think it might be a good opportunity for the Minister really to look into the matter from the point of view of protecting these women, whose health at such a period is of so great a value to the nation.

9.51 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I am particularly interested in this Clause, as many working women in my borough who are married have to go out and earn their living. They are insured, and they attach great importance to this point. I have no complaint to make about the sympathetic reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, who showed that he appreciated the importance of the point, but I would like a more definite assurance that the Ministry intends seriously to consider the problem. There are considerable numbers of these women, in spite of what he said, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will give us a definite assurance that he will give sympathetic consideration to this new Clause. If we can have that assurance, we will not press it to a Division.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I do not think it is really necessary, but after what the hon. Member has just said, we will look at the question as a whole again, bearing in mind the point clearly and quite rightly put by the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), as well as the points put by the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). We will look at the matter sympathetically and see whether we can solve it without causing more trouble to these women than they experience under the present arrangements.

Mr. Foot: In view of the assurances given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions as respects holidays.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Ernest Brown.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: On a point of Order. I understood that the Amendment standing in my name—in page 1, line 8, at the end, to insert "with pay "—was to be called.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That Amendment has not been selected.

Mr. Griffiths: But it is the most important Amendment.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of Order. This Amendment of ours is really of very great substance, and as a matter of fact it would be quite impossible to discuss the Clause properly without considering the aspect that is put in this Amendment. I am not in a position to give reasons for or to speak to the Amendment, but I want to say that we feel that we are very much hampered and that it will be quite impossible to put the case against this first Clause without this Amendment being called.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not in order to complain of arbitrary selection of Amendments by the Chair.

Mr. Griffiths: On the point of Order. I think I must be crooked to-night, because this is the fourth time I have been up against you, Sir, and I do not like it, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has said, this is the most important Amendment to the Bill.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, after "under," to insert "the foregoing provisions of."
May I ask your indulgence, Sir, if I take this and the next Amendment together? The first prepares the way for the second. I think I shall have the good will of the whole House, because this is a matter of considerable importance to mining Members, especially in South Wales. As the House will have judged by the discussions upstairs and to-day, there are a number of things under the present law which will require clearing up whatever view they take of the present Bill. This is an Amendment to deal with diff-


culties which have arisen because of an umpire's decision at the end of last year and, as the Bill cannot operate until 18th January next, it cannot be put right except in this way. In the case in question a miner had been indefinitely suspended from work for eight weeks when the holidays applicable to his employment occurred. It was held by the umpire, notwithstanding that the period of suspension had exceeded 12 working days, that the man could not be regarded as unemployed because his agreement provided for the giving of 14 days' notice of termination of employment, and such notice had not been given. That had not been the general practice before that, but this makes it binding for the holiday season which is now upon us. I think the House will agree that I am right in asking for this temporary power to put it right now.

Mr. Batey: I cannot understand why all the regulations that are going to be made cannot come into force at the same time. Why could they not all come into force on 18th January?

Mr. Brown: The answer is that this will only operate for the first and last time this summer.

Mr. Lawson: I think it is a good thing, and quite sound, that the right hon. Gentleman is taking this power. I have had an opportunity of examining the case, and I understand that the umpire has set the 12 days rule aside merely because the man has not given his 14 days' notice, and the right hon. Gentleman is taking steps to deal with that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Brown: I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, at the end, to insert:
(8) Pending the coming into operation of any regulations made under the foregoing provisions of this section, the Minister may by regulations provide that, for the purpose of any claim to benefit by an insured contributor, he shall, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulations, be deemed to be unemployed on any recognised or customary holiday occurring during a period for which his employment is suspended, being a period consisting of not less than fourteen consecutive days exclusive of such holidays.

Mr. Batey: Will the Minister explain this Amendment?

Mr. Brown: I have explained it.

Mr. Batey: The latter part of the Amendment talks about 14 consecutive days. I understand that 12 has been the rule in the past. Why should the Minister make it 14 now?

Mr. Brown: Fourteen means 12 workings days plus two Sundays.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendments as to increase of benefit in respect of adult dependants.)

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Neil Maclean: I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, at the end, to insert:
nor shall it include the provision of accommodation, including board, of children boarded out by a local authority.
The purpose of the Amendment is to do away with what is considered a grievance by a number of local authorities in Scotland, and particularly by the City of Glasgow. They have a large number of children who, by reason of certain domes-tie difficulties in their homes, have compelled the authorities to remove the children from many of the homes and find accommodation in others, which have been visited and examined by the city's inspectors, to see that they are suitable in every way and that the people in whose care the children are to be placed can be trusted to look after them and bring them up in a decent, respectable manner. The City of Glasgow pays a very large sum of money each year to people who are receiving these children, and it is sometimes found that where the man of the household is unemployed, when his income is being assessed, they take into consideration the amount that is being paid for the boarding of these children. We feel that something ought to be done, because by taking this payment into consideration there is a diminution in the amount that is going into the homes, and the local authorities feel that the children are bound to suffer. They desire that the whole amount that is being paid for the purpose of maintaining the children is being spent upon them so that they can be well fed and clothed and brought up respectably and in a healthy condition. If I draw the attention of the Minister to the Clause itself he will see that there is an omission which, had it not been there, would have remedied this matter and made it even clearer than my Amendment is calculated to make it. This is what it states in line 36:


such an occupation shall foe deemed not to include the provision of accommodation, whether with or without board, for not more than one lodger.
If between "one" and "lodger" there was the word "adult" it would have assisted in making this position much clearer. It would have meant then that those who are considered to be lodgers must be adults and that would have assisted us in our Amendment by ruling out any consideration of the amount paid for children. I know that the Minister of Labour will realise the importance of this. The money that is being spent by the local authorities in Scotland for those boarded-out children is for the purpose of seeing that they are being well kept. My information is—and it is not information sent in a letter, but information I have received from officials of the Corporation of Glasgow and also from members of the corporation who have paid periodical visits to the homes in which the boarded-out children are being kept—that the way in which those children are being kept is almost universally very good and very comfortable. Many of the people to whose homes they are sent to be brought up as though they were those people's own children get very fond of the children, and when the children have to leave the homes and follow some occupation, the parting is very often heartrending because of the great affection that has sprung up between the children and these people who have been their foster-parents.
I hope, therefore, that the greatest possible advantage is to be allowed to be taken of the moneys that are being spent by those authorities, that that money is to be spent in maintaining the conditions and giving all that is necessary to those children to have them brought up. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will see his way to accept my Amendment and enable the authorities to feel that in spending the large sums they are spending every year to maintain the children in those homes, the money is being spent on the children and is not being taken into account by any of the officials of a Government Department as being part of the income of the household, which is thus diminished, so that the children will suffer by it.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: In seconding this Amendment I do not need to add very much to what my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has stated. As the Minister knows, the local authorities, particularly in Glasgow, but almost every local authority in the industrial areas, have had considerable expense and experience with regard to this problem. The Minister also knows that 99 children out of 100 boarded out by the Glasgow authority are boarded out because of the very great poverty of their parents. It is because the local authority, with inspections, with placing guardians over those children, with giving them an opportunity that they possibly could not get in their poverty-striken homes in the slums, incur this expenditure, that it comes back upon the authority when restrictions are made on the people within the Glasgow area, that I appeal to the Minister to give this Amendment his very favourable consideration. I am rather tired of asking the Minister of Labour to deal with these problems in a sympathetic manner. This is not the problem of the adult unemployed under an insurance scheme but a problem of children who, because of the poverty of their parents, have had to be boarded out, with a local authority bearing an expense which it ought not to have to bear. Therefore, I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment and to see that the children do not suffer in any wav by a regulation or stipulation under the Act as it now applies.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: I can say at once that with the intention behind the Amendment I find myself in general sympathy, but I am not able to accept the Amendment, and for this reason: There are a number of authorities which carry out this practice. It is not confined to Glasgow alone. That is my difficulty. I am sure that neither the supporters of the Amendment nor the Glasgow Corporation desire to make it easy for people to make a profit out of this sort of thing. The Glasgow Corporation did raise this point directly this subject came up. They said that they chose families having regard to their suitability for looking after the children and that it was not intended to enable any profit to be made. I will promise the House to put an inquiry in hand, and if I can satisfy myself that the


principle laid down in the passage I have quoted from the statement of the Glasgow Corporation is the general rule and something which would not lend itself to abuse I should be glad to take the first opportunity of meeting the point, with which, as I have said, I have every sympathy. I will also have a look at other cases of boarding out, as I think the House would like me, while I am doing it, to do it thoroughly. I will let the House know the result of my inquiry and if the inquiry bears out the statement of the Glasgow Corporation, I will then take the first opportunity of meeting this point.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Maclean: I appreciate the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given and his difficulty in making an immediate decision on such a matter, and I am also satisfied about the inquiry. But when the right hon. Gentleman states "the first opportunity," I wonder if he would inform the House whether that refers to the time when he brings into the House the next Unemployment Bill, or whether he is under the impression that he can, after he makes a suitable inquiry and comes to a decision, make the necessary alteration at the first opportunity in a regulation which can be issued under this Bill.

Mr. Buchanan: I understand that the first opportunity means the first time the Minister introduces a Bill dealing with unemployment insurance. It is only a few years since we passed the principal Act and we are piling up quite a number of amending Acts. However, as I understand it the Minister means that the alteration will take place when a new Bill is introduced.

Mr. E. Brown: indicated assent.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I would ask the Minister, when examining the position, to have regard not merely to organisations, but to look into the question of individuals. A widower who finds that he cannot look after his children frequently boards them out and pays for them, and it is sometimes found that that income is taken into account when dealing with other children.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister prepared at least to consult the local authorities

immediately concerned with this particular subject?

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Brown: If I may have permission to speak again I would say that that is the first step that I shall have to take, and in fact, I have already taken steps in that direction. I do not like to give a promise on the Floor of the House unless I am sure that I shall be able to fulfil it. I cannot be sure that my inquiries will be completed by the time this Bill goes to another place, but if the inquiries justify me in adopting the practice which has been laid down by the Glasgow Corporation, I will see that the first opportunity is taken to meet the principle of this Amendment.

Mr. Davidson: The Minister did not allow me to finish. If he feels that the result of his inquiries justifies the course of action we suggest, will he immediately bring forward a small amending Bill to deal with the point?

10.18 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said about having regard to private people, as well as authorities, boarding out children, but the minute we come to that point we find ourselves running up against a difficulty. Over and over again when dealing with the adoption of children we have come across cases where it would have been far better if the people taking the children whom they were willing to adopt had gone to the courts to make it a legal adoption, but in such a case we should have the strange anomaly that if the people who were willing to look after the child applied to the court to legalise the adoption, they would have the allowance taken away from them, because the child would have become one of their own family.

Mr. Buchanan: I think the hon. Lady is rather mistaken in her point, but as I have already spoken it is difficult for me to get time to answer her. There is a point that seems to be even more serious than that raised with reference to he Glasgow Corporation. In making calculations an orphan's pension is often taken into account, and the effect of that is to deprive the other children of the benefits of some of the income of the home. I hope the Minister will fearlessly examine that and all the other points.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: We are all very glad to see the Minister so sweetly reasonable, and we might ask him, as we did in the Committee once, who has bewitched him? In view of the promise which he has given, perhaps my hon. Friend might now be inclined to withdraw his Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman has practically held out the possibility of an inquiry.

Mr. Maclean: I have not yet received any definite answer to my question.

Mr. G. Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has referred to the sweet reasonableness of the Minister, but it does not come quickly enough for us. There is nothing to prevent the Minister, with the ability that he possesses, considering this matter and bringing it forward on a later stage of the Bill. I hope that the Minister is not going to allow this sweet reasonableness to be in the sweet by-and-by. We want it to be shown, if at all possible, now, and in the Bill. The Minister might not be on those benches in October. He might be on this side of the House and somebody else be over there, and I suggest that he do this thing now.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Poole: I want to reinforce the appeal to the Minister that the reforms should be embodied in the Bill, and my hon. Friend should not withdraw the Amendment because of what the Minister has said. It is not reasonable to ask the House to await the introduction of another Unemployment Bill before we get the much-needed reform to the present Bill. It may be two years before we have another Unemployment Bill. Are the children to be penalised during those two years because of the inability of the Minister to make inquiries which are, after all, not difficult? The information necessary is already collated and is in the hands of the local authorities. If I understood the Minister aright, his prime concern in regard to these children who are boarded out is that a profit shall not be made by those who adopt them. If the Minister desires to safeguard himself on that point, he must have a good idea of the cost of maintaining a child. The figures are

available from many sources. Let him fix a maximum amount, and so long as the amount which is paid does not exceed the maximum, it can be disregarded. It is easy for the Minister to make in this Bill the concession which is necessary.

It is too much to expect that those of us who have been concerned, in our local government work, with the boarding out of children, should wait for two years for another unemployment Bill before this elementary reform is inserted. It ought to have occurred to the Minister when this Bill was framed. I wonder whether the Clause does not at present cover the point. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to say that a child who lodges in a house is a lodger just as much as anybody else who Judges in the house. It may depend upon the meaning of the term "lodger," for, after all, when a child is boarded out it becomes a lodger in the house in which it is boarded. In regard to the point made by the hon. Lady, there is no penalisation in respect of children who are adopted by their parents. When a parent legally adopts a child and loses the amount which is paid by the local authority the parent does so for love of the child and knows full well that he is going to lose the boarding-out allowance which is normally paid. We ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and see whether he can expedite the inquiry between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, in order to insert the necessary Amendment which will put this reform into the Bill. If it has to wait for some other Bill the time may never materialise.

Mr. Maclean: I would ask the Minister to reply to the question which I put. Can he put any regulation into the Bill to cover the particular circumstances named in my Amendment? He cannot? Then it means that it must wait for another Bill, and I am therefore afraid that I cannot accept his assurance. We must divide the House.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 201.

Division No. 159.]
AYES.
[10.27 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Adamson, W. M.
Batey, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Beaumont, H. (Batley)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Ammon, C. G.
Bellenger, F. J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Banfield, J. W.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.




Benson, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bromfield, W.
Hicks, E. G.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ridley, G.


Buchanan, G.
Jagger, J.
Riley, B.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ritson, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Chater, D.
John, W.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cooks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Collindridge, F.
Kirby, B. V.
Shinwell, E.


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Simpson, F. B.


Daggar, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sloan, A.


Dalton, H.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Smith, T, (Normanton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Day, H.
Logan, D. G.
Stephen, C.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Inee)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Stokes, R. R.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Marshall, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Tomlinson, G.


Foot, D. M.
Messer, F.
Viant, S. P.


Frankel, D.
Milner, Major J.
Walkden, A. G.


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Welsh, J. C.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Westwood, J.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Muff, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilmot, J.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, C- H. (Attercliffe)


Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pearson, A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayday, A.
Poole, C. C.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
De la Bèer, R.
Holdsworth, H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Holmes, J. S.


Albery, Sir Irving
Denville, Alfred
Hopkinson, A.


Apsley, Lord
Donner, P. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hewitt, Dr. A. B.


Assheton, R.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Dunglass, Lord.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Balniel, Lord
Eastwood, J. F.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hunloke, H. P.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hunter, T.


Bossom, A. C.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Jennings, R.


Boulton, W. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Keeling, E. H.


Boyce, H. Leslla
Errington, E.
Kellett, Major E. O.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Brass, Sir W.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Fildes, Sir H.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Findlay, Sir E.
Lees-Jones, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Fleming, E. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bull, B. B.
Furness, S. N.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Levy, T.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Liddall, W. S.


Butcher, H. W.
Gledhill, G.
Lindsay, K. M.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Lipson, D. L.


Carver, Major W. H.
Granville, E. L.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grimston, R. V.
Loftus, P. C.


Channon, H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Lyons, A. M.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hambro, A. V.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hannah, I. C.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Magnay, T.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Harbord, A.
Maitland, Sir Adam


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Haslam, Henry (Hornoastle)
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Marsden, Commander A.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Herbert, Lt.-Col, J. A. (Monmouth)
Medlioott, F.


Crossley, A. C.
Higgs, W. F.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.







Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Moreing, A. C.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Morrison, G. A. (Soottish Univ's.)
Rowlands, G.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Munro, P,
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Thorneyoroft, G. E. P.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Peaks, O.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wakefield, W. W.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Salt, E. W.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Petherick, M.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Pickthron, K. W. M.
Scott, Lord William
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Selley, H. R.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Procter, Major H. A.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Radford, E. A.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Ramsbotham, H.
Simmonds, O. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonal G.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Smith. Sir R. W. (Abardeen)
Wise, A. R.


Rankin, Sir R,
Smithers, Sir W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Snadden, W. McN.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Read, A. C. (Exeter)
Somerset, T.
Wragg, H.


Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Somarvell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Raid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
York, C.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Spens. W. P.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Remer, J. R.
Storey, S.



Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ropner, Colonel L.
Strickland, Captain W. F,
Mr. James Stuart and Captain Waterhouse.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I am extremely sorry that at this time of night it is necessary for me to say a few words on the Third Reading—particularly when there is other business. But it is important that the House should understand that this Bill, which we said on the Second Reading had certain good Clauses, has still one or two Clauses, including, indeed, the chief Clauses, which are, from our point of view, very dangerous. I am particularly sorry that we had not an opportunity on the Report stage to get an answer from the right hon. Gentleman on several points of great importance in this Bill. Some of the most important points have been totally untouched during the Debate. The House will understand clearly that the origin of this Bill rests upon a certain report. The right hon. Gentleman says that I have always understood that it did. The fact is there has been a great quantity of case law dealing with holidays; it has almost become a section of Unemployment Insurance law. The report stated that the law dealing with holidays was becoming rather dangerous because of the adoption of holidays with pay on a large scale. It was proposed that the Minister, instead of continually relying upon the umpires' decisions, which are varied, and number thousands, the Minister should take power to decide by regulation when a man is deemed to be on holiday.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us to-night—because it is a cardinal point

in this Bill—what he means by "a man deemed to be on holiday"? My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) put this point. Men in factories, workshops, shipyards and mines have, by agreement, holidays of a week or a fortnight with pay. They will be on holiday according to the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman will make, but we wished, by an Amendment, to make it clear that it meant "holiday with pay." The right hon. Gentleman was not in the mood to accept such a definition. Take the case of a man who goes from a workshop, shipyard or mine to another place of employment. By agreement, he must work perhaps 12 months before he is entitled to holidays with pay. Supposing, when the holiday time is due, the man has not been in his new employment long enough to qualify for holidays with pay. Is he to be deemed to be on holiday, and is he to be penalised as a result of this Bill?

Mr. Buchanan: Yes.

Mr. Lawson: I understand that a good deal depends upon the regulations, but the right hon. Gentleman should give us some indication of the position with regard to these important points. Is a man who is receiving no pay and who is unemployed because the rest of the workers are on holiday to be deprived of his benefit? The right hon. Gentleman should answer that question. We did not get an opportunity of putting an Amendment upon the point, but I think the right hon. Gentleman should make the matter quite clear.


There is another point. In Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 there is a reference to an insured contributor, but in the next Subsection the reference is to an employed contributor. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question on the Second Reading, whether he could tell us why there is this distinction between an insured contributor and an employed contributor. There must be some reason for it, but we have not been given the reason. Is it to be applied to some unemployed workers? Is it to extend the Bill to those who are not actually employed, but insured? I do not wish to take up the time of the House by showing how the Bill is going to work, but there is not the slightest doubt that it will work very hardly. Take the case of a man and the three days' waiting period. He comes to Easter week and perhaps has been idle on the Wednesday of that week. He is unemployed on the Good Friday, and usually works do not start on the Saturday. He has been idle three days, but he usually has the benefit of Good Friday as a waiting day, which will now be counted as a holiday, and he will lose his benefit for those two days. There is not the slightest doubt that men are going to lose benefit for a day or days where they have been getting it in the past.
Then, what is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about the regulations? Apparently hon. Members are to be ruled out altogether. I know the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that we can put down a prayer and start the consideration of regulations after 11 o'clock at night, but we shall do so with the clear knowledge before we start that the Chief Whip will be there and use his majority to force the regulations through. Who is going to be present at the investigations? Is it to be the Employers Federation on the one hand and the Trades Union Congress on the other, or are any sections of the workers to have an opportunity of putting their point of view? I have here a document submitted by the Durham Miners Association who have been much alarmed about this matter. They have thoroughly analysed the Bill and have stated their case. Will an organisation of that kind have an opportunity of putting its point of view, and will organised sections of workers who feel that they have a special case, have an opportunity of putting their case before the right hon.
Gentleman or the Statutory Committee? I think it is very important that that should be so, because the conditions vary so widely.
The Statutory Committee made certain suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman has accepted in the main, and therefore, we have this Bill before us. We think that the operation of some of these Clauses will be harsh. At the same time, I am not blind to the fact that there are certain Clauses in the Bill—as we said in the Second Reading Debate and on the Committee Stage, and would have said to-night if we had had the opportunity—which give certain benefits. Having expressed our feelings in very strong language to-night, and having in the Division Lobby, both in Committee and on the Report Stage, expressed ourselves in regard to those Clauses with which we disagree, we do not feel like going into the Lobby against some of the Clauses, because they give some little benefit. On this side, although we have made our criticisms and given our warnings, we have made it a practice always not to take any step to oppose anything that would bring some little improvement in the conditions of any section of workers affected by modern industry.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to-night to give us some explicit answers on these important points. We have not had answers in the past, and indeed, if we had had answers in the Second Reading Debate or on the Committee Stage, we might not have been as long about our business to-night. When is a man deemed to be on holiday? Perhaps tens of thousands of men's benefit will depend upon a proper interpretation of that. I should like the right hon. Gentleman also to answer the other questions I have put to him. There is much more that could be said in regard to these matters, but we did not get an opportunity of saying it because of the special method of selection of the Amendments that were put. I expect to receive from the right hon. Gentleman some explicit answers to the questions that I have asked.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Hayday: There are one or two points to which I should like to call attention before we finally part with this Bill. I rather regret that the Government have missed the golden opportunity of having


a more complete revision and readjustment of anomalies, and of making certain improvements that are so desirable, that was afforded by the Bill. It is a pity that the Government could not agree to make their task more real and complete. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), I feel that there are many improvements within the Bill, such as the extension from 10 to 20 weeks, and one or two other matters; but certainly it falls short of being the satisfactory Measure that it might have been had the Government been a little more inclined to meet the obvious objections that exist. I need only briefly supplement the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street with regard to the holiday disqualification. All that we asked was that the words "with pay" should be inserted. That would have made it clear that any workman having his holidays with pay should be excluded from the right of any claim for unemployment benefit during that period. But if a man is having a week's compulsory holiday without pay, surely he should receive his unemployment benefit for that week, because in that case the man has no alternative—he is in the same position as a man thrown out of work. It is true that, under a general scheme such as we now have, 90 per cent. may enjoy holidays with pay, but what becomes of the other 10 per cent.? While others are having a holiday with pay, the Unemployment Assistance Board must give those men what the employer on the one hand denies, and what the Minister of Labour denies them under this Bill.
There is one other important matter on which I hoped the Minister would have introduced an Amendment to-day. It is in connection with Clause 4, where the Bill states that an insured contributor is entitled to benefit in
a case where the insured contributor has residing with him and is wholly or mainly maintaining his daughter or sister, being a daughter or sister who has attained the age of eighteen years.
We asked that that should apply in the case of a daughter at the age of 16 instead of 18, because it often happens where there is a family of younger children and the mother has passed away that the father, rather than bring in a housekeeper, and thus lay himself open to the odious suspicions that often surround a workman

in that position, gets that daughter of 16 to become the mother of the home. She looks after those children as no housekeeper could do. If that child of 16 were receiving her education, there would be an allowance, but when the age of 16 is reached automatically the dependant's allowance ceases, and a daughter between the ages of 16 and 18 is cut off from any benefit whatever. I should have thought the Government would have seen the injustice of that, because it increases the handicap on an unfortunate household. It has a tendency to weaken, rather than strengthen, the family relationship of which we are so proud in this country, and it creates a set of circumstances which I am sure no one in this House desires.
There has been no possibility of discussing a Clause covering the case in which an employer violates an agreement entered into in connection with a trade or undertaking. There is a stronger argument for that now than ever there was, although it was in an earlier Act, which gave benefits to a large number of men, although it led to certain difficulties as regards umpires. We are strengthened in our view by the knowledge that all the national joint industrial councils have been appealing for an enactment that would legalise agreements as regards industrial conditions and rates of wages and make them compulsory. The absence of such a provision from this Bill puts us back to the old stage. The bad employer can decline to carry out a national agreement to which he, through his federation, has been a party, and if the men refuse to work for a rate lower than the agreed rate he can lock them out, and if they stand down they can get no unemployment benefit at all, because it is looked upon as a dispute. That weakens the relationship between employers and workmen through their respective associations. The national joint industrial councils have asked that these agreements should be made legal and that compulsory observance of them should be required.
We must comment on the absence of that provision from the Bill. It was put in by a Labour Government, it has been taken out by a National Government, and we ask that it should be put in again. I feel that enough has been said, although much could be said, about the shortcomings of the Bill. While appreciating the slight advantages and benefits


which it will give to numbers of the unemployed, I hope the Minister will use such powers as he has taken to make it a more complete addition than it is at present to the many Measures which have preceded it and that he will give more favourable consideration to those who come within its operations.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I am in complete agreement with my colleagues above the Gangway in the regret they have expressed that the Minister did not take the opportunity which was presented to him when a Measure of this kind was being introduced. One has to recognise that there are some points in the Bill which will make for material improvement in the treatment of the unemployed. The extension to the 20 weeks will have a material effect but I exceedingly regret that the Minister has so completely refused to respond to the appeals made to him from all parts of the House on the question of holidays. One of the great weaknesses of all the Unemployment Insurance Bills introduced within my experience has been that so many of those responsible for drafting and working out their terms have not had real experience of unemployment, and have not had an adequate conception of the circumstances of unemployed people. In the section dealing with holidays, I think there has been throughout the whole time in connection with unemployment insurance a complete incapacity on the part of those responsible to realise that working-class people are not getting holidays when they are out of work and are not being paid for that period.
I speak from bitter experience of my own home with regard to what was called the holiday period. There came a holiday period at Glasgow Fair, and working-class people tried to get away for a week or a fortnight at the seaside, but the result in working-class homes was that you came back from the seaside, and there were so many commitments that there was no money in the house. For the next six months that working-class home staggered from crisis to crisis, and until just about the New Year, in Scotland- -it would be Christmas in England -you were getting into an economic position in which you had practically overcome the effects of that fortnight in July when there was no pay coming in.

Then you had a week's holiday at the New Year, and so you went into another crisis for the next six months, from January to July. It never seemed to me to be realised, in connection with unemployment insurance, what the circumstances in working-class homes were owing to those unpaid holidays.
I am greatly disappointed that the Minister has refused the opportunity that was given to him to have the co-operation of Members of this House of all parties in modifying the draft regulations. He rejected it altogether. The statutory Committee are to have the opportunity of listening to this and the other section of people, who will talk to them about the regulations, and we as individuals can go to them, and they will report to the Minister. He will prepare a draft, and we who come from the constituencies and who have from our constituents the proper views as to the holiday period in the districts can do nothing. It is true that we can present a Prayer, but I would ask the Minister, When was a Prayer successful? [Hon. Members: '' Oh!"] It is so long since I was a minister. I still believe that the prayers of a righteous man avail, but I am asking the Minister of Labour when the Prayers of Members of Parliament in connection with regulations have had any effect. Not even in the notorious case when the regulations were made in connection with the means test was there any possibility of our dealing with the difficulty that had arisen.
I suggest to the Minister still that he should take account of the possibilities, when this Bill goes to the other place, of meeting his colleagues in this House and granting a concession in connection with the regulations. I would suggest that he could consider an Amendment so that a day would be allotted for the consideration of the regulations, with the opportunity of Amendments being moved. If he is afraid of the time that it would take, he can surely arrange to have an Amendment inserted in another place so that the draft regulations will be considered by the House of Commons, with an opportunity of amendment, the whole proceedings to be finished in one day. I put that forward as a suggestion which would help in some way to meet the general disapproval which has been expressed. I feel very much regret indeed that the Minister did not take the opportunity of bringing forward


a much more satisfactory Measure. With regard to the point about the dependants, we appreciate that an improvement is being made but we all think the Minister was making a great mistake in not fixing the age at 18. We appreciate the fact that we have got another stage in connection with this. I should have thought, from the way the right hon. Gentleman sometimes speaks, that he would have shown much greater courage and imagination in trying to produce a Measure which would have got much more unanimity in the House and much more satisfaction on these benches.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Member speaks of lack of courage and imagination, but one of the proposals that have been made was so bold that it provoked the opposition of men who would not be called reactionaries opposite. This Bill is a great reform I do not know whether the prophecies of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) will prove accurate. We have heard from the same source other prophecies which have not been fulfilled. The House ought to understand that the Bill is different in one respect on Third Reading from what it was on the Second Reading. That is due to my realisation of the feelings that hon. Members have about one part of the Bill. We had hoped to get it before Easter. The original Bill was made effective from October, but, realising the difficulties of the problem, and the strength of feeling, I myself proposed an Amendment in Committee so that the Bill, as regards the part about which feeling is expressed, does not become operative until 18th January. I desired, as Minister, to have time to consult all those who have been expressing views about it, and they are many. Nearly all of them have come from the mining industry. [Interruption.] The hon. Member was not on the Committee. The records will be on my side.
We are not making the law alone for miners. We are making it for the whole of industry in the light of a great and unprecedented movement of reform. It is such a revolution as to induce hon. Members to speak very strongly about it. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street said the Bill had its origin in the report. The Bill has its origin in facts. The report only threw light on the facts and

made recommendations in the light of the facts revealed. What are the facts?

Mr. Lawson: It is based on the report.

Mr. Brown: That is another matter. I am taking this up because it is not a debating point, but a very real point. A solution of the problem of defining holidays, which has not been faced up to this time, will have to be faced by this House. Why? Because in insurance law holidays have never yet been defined. There is no such thing as a holiday in insurance law. Holidays are merely decided in terms of umpire's case law. I would ask hon. Members to do this Bill this justice—in the light of the facts, to analyse the illustrations they have made, and to distinguish those cases where difficulties arise now. Lots of the hard cases that have been quoted to-night are cases which arise now, where holidays are not defined. There are scores of them, and they have been the cause of complaint for a long time. That is the first class. There is a second. Since holidays have never been defined, as long as the position was static there was no real urge for reform. But this question of holidays with pay is no longer static. It is a wide, sweeping movement. Millions of people during the last three years have come under agreements for holidays with pay, and no two agreements are alike. They all have to be adapted to meet the needs of specific industries.
While I have listened with sympathy to what has been said by mining Members, I would remind them that it is not fair to put the whole burden on the employers, for the agreements were made by both sides. When the opportunity comes for both sides to review them in the light of the experience, the two sides will suggest to each other what Amendments are to be made. This was a new experience to the industry. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) knows what an extraordinary series of suggestions had to be made on both sides.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Why misrepresent the position in the mining industry? This is an attack on the miners.

Mr. Brown: I have made no attack.

Mr. Davies: You have misrepresented the miners' position.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that it was a new situation.

Mr. Davies: Why suggest that the miners are satisfied with their agreements?

Mr. Brown: I have not suggested anything of the sort. I have pointed out that they have the normal constitutional means for expressing their dissatisfaction to the owners. Seeing that already there was dissatisfaction in scores of different ways and that now we have a sweeping movement which before long, I have no doubt, will cover the whole field of industry, it is quite impossible for any statesman, whether he be an industrial or a political statesman, to face a situation in which a man cannot be told what is and what is pot a holiday. I think this point needed to be made, although I regret having had to take so long over it.
Next I have a few things to say in answer to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street. He wanted to know why a distinction was drawn between the word "insured" and the word "unemployed," and he feared there might be something behind the distinction. The explanation is a simple one. The word "insured" is always used technically in connection with unemployment insurance, and the word "employed" is used technically in connection with health insurance. His next question was, When the regulations are being made who will be heard? Will such a body as the Durham Miners Association be heard? The answer is that all those who have any concern in this matter will be heard. It was in order to give ample time that in Committee I moved an Amendment to make the date for this part of the Bill the 18th January instead of the first week in October. On behalf of the Durham Miners' Association he has given me a copy of a very elaborate document dealing with this problem. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) quoted from it this afternoon. I cannot imagine a more powerful argument for the procedure in this Bill than is furnished by that document, which I had the chance of looking at last night.
We have never defined holidays; the Statutory Committee did not do it, because the situation is full of complexities and difficulties. It cannot be done along the lines of finding some simple

definition in the terms of an Act of Parliament.

Mr. S. O. Davies: But the umpire will have to define it.

Mr. Brown: We are not concerned with the umpire except in the last resort. My whole answer to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street is that we are proposing to do three things. I have now first to submit a draft of regulations to be considered by the Statutory Committee, who will hear the observations of all those who are concerned. I have then to lay that draft so that we may know, first, whether a particular day is a holiday. Then we have to lay a draft to make it clear whether a holiday is a holiday for a particular person. A holiday may be a general holiday for an industry and not be a holiday for a particular person. Thirdly, we have to define by regulations what refinements will be necessary to meet difficult cases which are deemed not to be holidays.
I have a number of cases and I will quote one to show the necessities that arise. Take the case of a worker who had had a substantial spell of unemployment followed by a period of re-employment— but one not long enough for him to re-establish himself—and then there come the holidays, and a man who after a long spell of unemployment has been back in employment for so short a time that he has not been able to make provision for a holiday, ought not to be dealt with in the same way as a man to whom a holiday comes as a welcome break after a long spell of employment.
That is one illustration of a score of others, and in the light of the foregoing we shall have to get refinements to meet those points. We shall have to deal with all the reports—the report on linking-up and the effect of continuity, in the light of the new Bill. That is the type of problem. I have already received a great mass of information from all kinds of organisations, and I have shown the House that I shall take action to stop what in my judgment the House would not like to take place, namely, a case of Umpire law which recently would have affected South Wales. In the light of the general proposition, that will be my attitude in drafting the regulations. We hope to get a draft ready for the Statutory Committee, in the. early summer.
Notice will then be given to all concerned in the matter and Members of Parliament or anybody else may go and have the benefit of expert knowledge. Employers' organisations and all kinds of organisations, as well as individuals who have special knowledge, will be called to give evidence. As I put in the date of 18th January, we shall have plenty of time to make sure that the House has a full discussion before Christmas of this year, in the light of what we have done.
Let the House remember that we have a balance here, and I lay down a proposition which no reasonable man can refute. We shall be able to determine that a holiday is not unemployment and that unemployment is not a holiday. Secondly, since any determination on that line, after the history of the past years of the customs that have grown up, is bound to have effects which are likely to mean about £400,000 of losses to those who now get the benefit, we take the view that there should be a great offset, to double the bridge of 10 weeks to 20 weeks, at a cost of £600,000. That, the House will agree, is a great reform. I shall not allude to the other reforms, except to say that I hope that the House will welcome the power which I have as Minister of Labour, to go forward with schemes in relation to "wet time," where practical. I hope the House will now give the Bill a unanimous Third Reading.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I would like an opportunity of a word on this Measure, and I would first of all raise a point that so far has not been mentioned. The Minister referred to the portion of the Bill in which he takes power to depart from the present law as a complete new departure. A decision of a court of referees is now paid at once to a man, when it is in his favour, but under the Bill a court of referees' decision in favour of a man will, for the first time, be not payable until the insurance officer has appealed to the Umpire. Thus, Section 49—I think it is —of the principal Act is being set aside. I was not on the Committee upstairs, though I would have liked to have been, but I would like to see some attention paid to this serious departure from the present law, namely, that, when a man has gone constitutionally to a court of referees and has been allowed benefit, the decision is not to operate because some insurance

official deems it necessary to appeal to the Umpire.
The Minister has said that Parliament has never defined what a holiday is, but that it is the Umpire who has done it. But the Umpire's decision, as a matter of case law, has legal effect just as much as case law decided by the Court of Appeal. There is no need for a decision by the Minister; the Umpire has already decided the matter over and over again. The Bill decides that in the future no day of holiday can count for payment of benefit or for continuity purposes, and no regulation can overcome that provision in the Act of Parliament. I understand that the Minister is to bring in regulations. The law at present says that, if a man is unemployed for 12 days plus his normal holiday, his normal holiday is not employment, but unemployment. In effect the present position is that, if a man's normal holiday is six days and he is unemployed for 18 days, the six days cease to be a holiday and become unemployment. I know the Minister will not answer me to-night, but is it his intention, and is he able under the Bill, to make a decision similar to that which the Umpire has already made, that if a person suffers a certain length of unemployment in a holiday period, say 12 days plus the normal holiday, that holiday will be regarded as a period of unemployment?
I was interested in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) with regard to regulations. Every Member of the House knows that it has been decided that the regulations must be passed as a whole, and are not capable of amendment. I should have thought that the House of Commons would have learned something from unemployment insurance. The hash that was made of the first regulations must have proved to the House that, whatever may be said for regulations, human beings and their rights are not a subject that ought to be lightly dealt with. If the Minister cannot give what has been asked for by the hon. Member for Dundee and my hon. Friends above the Gangway, surely it would not be impossible for him to submit his regulations to a Committee upstairs, similar to the Committee which examined the Bill, for the purpose of being examined and if necessary changed. That would not occupy any Parliamentary time.
In his remarks on these regulations he has given us the greatest argument in


favour of their being considered by the House. He said that every town varies, that every calling varies. That means that there will be regulations varying in character to deal with places far apart, to deal with industries unlike one another, to deal with the female population as against the male, and a host of complicated issues. The Minister's argument, if it has any force, means that the House of Commons should examine the regulations in detail. A Minister of Labour ought to welcome this House looking through the regulations. Are there not Members on the other side, as well as on this side, who could help in discussing them? The hon. Member for East Newcastle (Sir R. Aske) has taken a great interest in unemployment, and could give us the benefit of his advice. I would risk dividing against the Third Reading of this Bill, because, in regard to holidays and working time, it is a wholly reactionary step. At a time when we should be advancing, it marks a reactionary step, and despite what may have been said outside, I would have voted against it.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: I want to speak briefly on this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not take half an hour."] I do not care if I take two hours. It has been said that this Bill contains provisions which would be very beneficial to the unemployed. But, as has also been pointed out several times to-day, it contains a number of conditions which will adversely affect the unemployed. When it comes to a balance of gains and losses, I doubt whether the unemployed will be in the slightest degree better off. The Bill contains a principle which, it cannot be too strongly emphasised, is a departure from the historic rights of the House of Commons. I cannot understand anyone suggesting that because this pill has been sugared, we should swallow it. The Minister takes upon himself the responsibility of saying that in future his actions will be submitted not for judgment of the House of Commons, but for the judgment of a committee outside. I urge the House to vote against the Third Reading.

Orders of the Day — WHEAT (AMENDMENT) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Variation of standard price of home-grown millable wheat.)

11.38 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, at the end, to insert:
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the foregoing Sub-section the committee shall, before making a report to the Minister, making inquiries into—
(a) the desirability or otherwise of maintaining or increasing the acreage under wheat in preference to other forms of agriculture;
(b) the cost of production of wheat 05 farms of varying size; and
(c) the desirability or otherwise of establishing a board (if none exists) to regulate the marketing of wheat;
and the results of their inquiries into these and any other matters shall be embodied in their report."
Hon. Members will not expect me, in speaking in favour of this Amendment, to make the fullest possible statement at this late hour. Those Members who have the Order Paper before them will see that we are asking that the committee, who have the power under Clause 1 of this Bill to recommend a variation of the standard price of home-grown millable wheat—that is, the indirect subsidy provided for wheat growers—ought to be called upon, among other things, to consider the question of the acreage of wheat that would maintain a fair balance in our agriculture. In so doing, they ought, in their next report, to give reasons why they think the existing acreage of wheat ought to be maintained, or why we ought to increase or decrease that acreage.
I do not want to go into questions of nutrition, the production of milk, eggs, vegetables and those kinds of things for which this country is particularly suited, but, at all events, it ought to be a very important part of the duty of the committee to examine the question fairly thoroughly, and to recommend to this House whether or not we ought to maintain the existing acreage; whether we should increase it or whether there should be a decrease. Then we think that the committee, who have power to recommend a variation in the standard price, ought to be called upon to investigate the costs of the production of wheat. In this


country there is an amount of mechanised farming where the production of wheat will be much less costly than on small farms where mechanisation has not taken place. We think it should be part of the committee's duties to examine, in association with the Agricultural Statistical Department, the cost of producing wheat on various sized farms, on various kinds of land, and put all the information as to the production of wheat at our disposal. We also think that we should be able to call upon this committee to investigate the question whether some marketing schemes for wheat ought not to be introduced.
I do not want to go into all the facts and figures with which 1 have provided myself, and all the arguments I could adduce in favour of imposing these various duties on the committee, at this late hour of the night. When the Bill was in Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that with regard to the question of maintaining or increasing the acreage of wheat, or examining into the costs of production, he thought Clause I enabled the committee to do all that, but when we moved an Amendment to enable the committee to examine the possibility of marketing boards he said that it was not an appropriate committee to undertake such work and argued that if any committee was called upon to investigate the relationship between the production of one commodity and another over the whole field of wheat production it would take a very long time indeed. That was a job, he said, not for a committee of this kind, whose simple duty was to recommend a variation in the standard price, but rather for a Royal Commission.
If this is not an appropriate committee to investigate the wisdom of increasing or maintaining our wheat acreage, the costs of production of wheat and the advisability of marketing schemes, then provision should be made for such a committee in order to supply the House with all the information which can be collected on these vital points. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, having had one or two weeks in which to consider these questions, will have made up his mind that if this Wheat Bill, which is regarded by agriculturists and hon. Members opposite as the high spot in the National Government's agricultural legislation, is to continue, he has a duty to see that the

purchaser of bread, who is contributing this year anywhere between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 towards wheat production, does not have to pay more for his bread than is consistent with modern powers of production, and that what we are doing is strictly in accordance with a balanced agricultural policy and will not impose additional burdens upon families who must buy large quantities of bread. If we could impose upon the wheat producer a much more efficient method of marketing his produce than that existing at the moment, then we think that is the duty of Parliament. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see the wisdom of accepting the Amendment and providing us with the information asked for.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. R. Acland: I am inclined to support the Amendment, because I think it is right in relation to the history of the Ministry of Agriculture as conducted by this Government. The Amendment asks that the Committee, in making a report to the Minister, shall take into account and include in their report recommendations in regard to the area under wheat in relation to other products, the costs of production, and the methods of marketing. Probably the Minister will reply that all this is provided for in the wording of the Clause at it stands—
after considering general economic conditions and the conditions affecting the agricultural industry.
If we were considering this matter without any knowledge of the agricultural history of the last few years, if we were considering it quite academically and simply as a matter of English, I think there would be some grounds for saying that those general words are wide enough to include those things which are specifically mentioned in the Amendment, but I cannot consider the Amendment except in relation to the history of agricultural legislation during the last seven years. It seems to me to have been marked by the three things which are precisely covered by this Amendment. The first is that whereas the Government have in one form or another given money to one branch of the industry and another— money which was not unwelcomed and not undeserved—nevertheless, these steps have been taken by the Government first in one form and then in another form,


without looking at the agricultural industry as a whole. Each time one branch or another of the industry has seemed to be in distress and difficulty, the Government have asked, "What can we do for this branch, that branch or the other branch?" Never has one met a Minister of Agriculture who would regard the industry as a whole and say, "I have so much public money which I and other Ministers judge right to spend for the assistance of agriculture—what is the best way to spend this money for the benefit of the industry as a whole?" Subsection 2 (a) of the Amendment would deal with that point.
The greater part of the Government's legislation with regard to agriculture has depended upon the principle—-which was quite a right one—that costs of production were not being covered. While that argument has been made in principle, we have never had from the Government any attempt to make a statement as to what the costs of production really were. The Government have said that if we make an investigation, we shall find that the costs of production on different farms are surprisingly different. Quite so, but that might be useful, because in finding that they were different from farm to farm, one might find out something about why they differed, and one might be able to make some suggestions to the industry as to how to reduce costs of production. It is by reducing the costs of production, and not by assistance from the State, that the agricultural industry must ultimately find its salvation. I am sure the Minister will agree with that. Lastly, the Government have made deficiency payments and what not to one branch of the industry after another. Will they meet this payment out of public funds? They have not tried to see whether they could get some part of the £300,000,000 to bridge the gap between what the housewife pays for the produce and what the farmer gets for it.
Those seem to be three things on which the Government ought to be thinking and concentrating but, as I have seen during the last few years, they have not been thinking or concentrating as they should have been. In view of that historical fact I would welcome an Amendment which said, in relation to wheat, that it shall be the duty of the Committee to

think about, consider and report upon just those three things.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. John Morgan: I would supplement and support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend and, realising that the Minister is likely to take the line that this is not an appropriate committee for such a purpose, while admitting the good points of the Amendment and the general value of the case which has been made, I am prepared to accept that line of approach to the difficulty with which he will be faced, if he will undertake that there will be an appropriate committee for dealing with such important considerations as are raised in the Amendment. But that is not likely. Therefore I am hoping that we shall press this Amendment upon his attention.
The first point in the Amendment relates to the desirability of maintaining or increasing the acreage under wheat in preference to other forms of agriculture. What has been the main effect of the subsidy? It has been to raise wheat acreage from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 acres. That means that you have actually directed your subsidy not at the million but at the half-million acres of wheat which you have raised. You could have kept in cultivation 1,000,000 acres. [Hon. Members: "No."] Well, within limits, we will say, of 100,000 acres or so either way; let us say half. You have directed your subsidy of £9,000,000 a year—as it will be this year—to something like 750,000 acres of land in this country. That is a very costly form of assistance to agriculture, running into the neighbourhood, if you take the lesser figure, of £9 per acre or, if you take the net value, of £18 per acre, which is more than the capital value of the average wheat land brought into cultivation. I am making the point not because I am condemning the scheme, but to show that there are more suitable ways which will operate without damaging the case in the minds of the general consumer.
The Minister is coming to this House for an extension of the subsidy to oats, because in Scotland they are not getting wheat assistance and have for some years been throwing their eyes, as it were, over the Border and saying: "Look at those English farmers, and at what you are doing for them. What are you doing for us? Nothing." "And so you are to give


a subsidy to a crop which is consumed on the farms up to 80 per cent., a crop whose growth is reflected in the finished product and not in the article itself. So there is a by-product acreage in our development of wheat in this country which is affecting cereal development elsewhere. 
The second part of the Amendment is in regard to costs of production. There will come a time in this House, and every section of opinion knows it, when this form of assistance to agriculture will be questioned. You are bound to raise it, when your retrenchment period sets in. How much stronger would be the position of a Minister of Agriculture if he knew the point at which he dare not yield, if he was thinking of the real interests of agriculture. At the moment he has not any idea of the price point up to which he can legitimately yield while meeting the fair case of agriculture. He is now giving assistance and setting up a committee, which is understood by the farmers to be with the view, not of reducing the subsidy but of providing for the expansion of the subsidy both in acreage and in the amount of money available. It will not always be the same Minister who will sit on that bench. There may be a Minister who will need support and buttressing, in defending the real interests of agriculture, instead of placating particular demands at particular times, especially three or four months before an Election.
Here is a point on which the Minister ought to do something. You have a tax on bread of £9,000,000. The Treasury are not interested in the transaction, or they would require a marketing scheme, as they have required one in every case in which they are interested, to protect their position. But the housewife has to pay ¾d. on every loaf. The farmer crowds his wheat into the market from September until December. He crowds from one-half to two-thirds of it into those months and he crashes his own market. He does so, first, because he wants the money, but also in order to qualify for the subsidy from the Wheat Commission of an amount equal to that which he gets for his wheat. He gets two payments in that quarter and he wants them as quickly as possible. So, we have the figures disclosed to me in answer to a question, showing that over the period of the operation of the Act, the disparity between

English and Canadian wheat prices has widened dramatically. Before the Act came into operation, English wheat on a particular day made about 6s. 7d. per cwt. and Manitoba No. 1 made 73. 9d. But in January, 1938, English wheat only made 8s. 5d. and Manitoba had risen to 14s. That indicated that the farmer was selling on a weak position and was not sufficiently interested in the price which his wheat was making. That was because he was resting on a guaranteed price and because the housewife was there to make up any deficiency caused by the weakness of his selling position.
There is a substantial case for putting some sort of provision into the Bill to protect the housewife. The price of the loaf is open to the selling of 80,000 farmers in a thousand markets under conditions of weakness—selling to merchants in whose debt the farmers are up to the neck, and from whom they cannot run away. If the farmer sells badly, some poor housewife in the slums has to help to make up the deficiency and yet the House is not prepared to put in any safeguard, such as the Treasury would insist on, if they were advancing the money. Surely this is not a case which the House will allow to pass. There is substance in the Amendment which proposes that we should instruct the committee to take this matter into consideration. Failing that, there should be some form of undertaking that this will be provided in some other fashion. I support the Amendment, not because I want to see the scheme destroyed, but because I want to protect the farming industry from the volume of dissatisfaction which will arise if this kind of thing is done at the expense of people who are not protected.

12.0.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I am afraid that even after two or three weeks of thought, I am no more able to accept this Amendment than I was to accept a series of similar Amendments in the Committee upstairs. But I would like, if I can, to reassure the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I still hold the view that this committee is not the appropriate body to perform those tasks which the Amendment would place upon it. It seems to me that those tasks would be very much more tasks for a Royal Commission than for the standard price committee under this Bill. I do not propose


to argue whether it would be a good or a bad thing to have a Royal Commission to go into these matters but if they are to be gone into, I do not think this committee is the body to do it. If the committee is to consider the desirability or otherwise of maintaining or increasing the acreage under wheat, in preference to other forms of agriculture, it would, in my view, entirely alter the type of committee which we have in mind. I believe that the question of what is the most desirable acreage to have under wheat is one which can only be decided by the Government of the day, because considerations such as defence have a great effect in determining what should be the proper acreage. There is no question about the fact that the committee will take into review the effect of the working of this wheat acreage upon agriculture in general. The last standard price committee took cognisance of that and brought to our notice their opinions on how the Act had operated and I imagine this committee will do the same, but I cannot see that it should be any part of their duty to decide what the acreage should be.
As regards the cost of production of wheat, I realise the feeling which exists and I can say that there will be no objection to the committee taking into consideration all the evidence which is available on this question. Indeed we shall be delighted to assist them with such evidence as we have at the Ministry and if any bodies appear before the committee seeking alterations in price, I take it that they will have to produce evidence in support of their case. But if we ask the committee to inquire into the whole cost of production of wheat throughout the country, it will be an extremely long job. It would take not one season but

three or four seasons, and it would be most unfortunate if they were precluded from reporting to me on the standard price for three or four years.

With regard to marketing, there is ample machinery in existence for dealing with it. Under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, the wheat producers, if they think fit, can submit to the Minister a draft scheme for regulating the marketing of wheat, and it is open to the Minister to appoint an agricultural marketing reorganisation commission which would be charged with the duty of preparing a draft scheme, and it would then be up to the Minister to take such steps as he thought fit to bring that scheme to the notice of producers. Thus there is machinery in existence under the Act passed by the party opposite to deal with this question. I understand the anxiety which has been expressed on this matter, but I repeat that I do not think this committee should work as a reorganisation committee for marketing and I am unable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: At this hour it is impossible to debate this very important principle effectively. The Minister has missed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) with regard to marketing. There is no need to put the marketing machinery into operation as long as the farmer has a guaranteed price. However, I do not wish to argue it now and at this stage I shall simply ask my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 175.

Division No. 160.]
AYES.
[12.7 a.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Groves, T. E.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Day, H.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Dobbie, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Alexander, Rt. Han. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Ammon, C. G.
Ede, J. C.
Hayday, A,


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Barnes, A. J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Hicks, E. G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Foot, D. M.
Hills, A, (Pontefraet)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Frankel, D.
Jagger, J.


Benson, G.
Gallacher, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Bevan, A.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Buchanan, G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
John, W.


Burke, W. A.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Collindridge, F.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Kirby, B. V.


Cove, W. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Kirkwood, D.


Daggar, G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Dalton, H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Macdonald, G. (Inee)




McEntee, V. La T.
Poole, C. C.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


McGhee, H. G.
Price, M. P.
Stokes, R. R.


MacLaren, A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Mainwaring, W. H.
Ridley, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Marshall, F.
Ritson, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Maxton, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Tomlinson, G.


Milner, Major J.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Watkins, F. C.


Montague, F.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Westwood, J.


Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Sexton, T. M.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S)
Simpson, F. B.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Muff, G.
Sloan, A.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Wilmot, J.


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C)


Paling, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Parkinson, J. A.
Sorensen, R. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W
Stephen, C.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Hambro, A. V.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Harmon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Harbord, A.
Rankin, Sir R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Assheton, R.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (lsle of Thanet)
Hen cage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Balniel, Lord
Higgs, W. F.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Remer, J. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Holdsworth, H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Boulton, W. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brass, Sir W.
Hunloke, H. P.
Rowlands, G.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Hunter, T.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Jennings, R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Bull, B. B.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bullock, Capt. M.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Salt, E. W.


Butcher, H. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Kellett, Major E. O.
Scott, Lord William


Cary, R. A.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Selley, H. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Channon, H.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Kimball, L.
Smithers, Sir W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Lancaster, Captain G. G.
Snadden, W. McN.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Somerset. T.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
[...]ghton, Major B. E. P.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Dolman, N. C. D.
Liddall, W. S.
Spens, W. P.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Storey, S.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lyons, A. M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C,
McKie, J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Crossley, A. C.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Magnay, T.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


De la Bère, R.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thorneyoroft, G. E. P.


Donner, P. W.
Markham, S. F.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H,
Marsden, Commander A.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Duggan, H. J.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Dunglass, Lord
Medlicott, F.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Eastwood, J. F.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Moor:, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C,


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S, Harvie


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Findlay, Sir E.
Munro, P.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Fleming E. L.
Nail, Sir J.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Furness, S. N.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wood, Hon. C. 1. C.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Gledhill, G.
Peake, O.
York, C.


Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.
Peter:, Dr. S. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partiok)


Granville, E. L.
Petherick, M.



Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grimston, R. V.
Procter, Major H. A.
Major Sir James Edmondson and Lieut.-Colonel Herbert,


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Radford, E. A.



Bill read a Second time.

CLAUSE 6.—(Quota payments in respect of flour.)

12.13 a.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, to leave out "such."
This is a drafting Amendment necessitated by Amendments which I propose to move to Clause 7. It and the subsequent Amendment make no change of substance and both are in such a form that their acceptance will in no way prejudice the House in considering the proposed Amendments to Clause 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 8, leave out "as is specified in the next succeeding Section," and insert: "in respect of which, by virtue of the provisions of the next succeeding Section, no quota payments are to be made."—[Sir R. Dorman-Smith.']

CLAUSE 7.—(Exemption from quota payments of certain substances destined for livestock.)

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, to leave out "flaked or rolled wheat mixture."
This is the first of a series of Amendments to meet a difficulty which arose during proceedings in the Standing Committee, and with permission I suggest that we should discuss the whole of these Amendments together as the others are consequential upon the first.

Mr. T. Williams: We on these benches would agree to that proposal. One comprehensive Debate would satisfy us.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: So far as I am concerned I am in the hands of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is not the real principle at issue raised in the Amendment which proposes to leave out "one half" and to substitute "three-quarters"?

Mr. T. Williams: I think the hon. Member has put his finger on the vital Amendment, but the Amendments preceding it have a bearing on it, and with one discussion we could cover the whole ground.

12.16 a.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Even though it is late I am sure the House will forgive me if I go into this matter in some de-

tail, because it is one of real importance to a great many people. The purpose of Clause 7 is to exempt certain categories of flour from quota payments. It takes the place of the proviso in Sub-section (1) of Clause 3 of the Act of 1932 under which wheat meal, either alone or mixed with other substances, was exempt from quota payments if the miller could satisfy the Wheat Commission that it was intended for animal or poultry food. That exemption was granted partly as an administrative convenience and partly in pursuance of the Government's intention that the feeding interests should not be directly handicapped by the Act. Since that Act came into operation there has been a great increase in the output of this quota-free meal, especially when wheat is cheap, and the Wheat Commission have made representations to me that the exemption of wheat meal does, in fact, operate unfairly against the millers and the importers of low grade flour. They also represented to me that there was a danger that the quota-free meal which is nominally sold for feeding to livestock might be diverted from its proper use and sold for the making of bread. It was, therefore, unanimously recommended by the Wheat Commission, and I think the House will agree with the principle, that while wheat meal for animal or poultry feeding should continue to be free from quota payments that freedom should be conditional upon a measure of admixture which is calculated to meet two points of criticism.
The Bill as presented to Parliament provided in general that milled wheat substances manufactured from flour produced in the United Kingdom which were destined for livestock should be free from quota payment liability provided that the wheaten content did not exceed 50 per cent. of the whole. There were three exceptions to that general rule of dilution. In order to avoid interfering with the existing practice of feeders of livestock or poultry it was provided that flaked or rolled wheat needed to be diluted with only one-third of its weight of non-wheaten substances and cut wheat and multure meal did not need to be diluted at all. In spite of the fact that the proposals in the Bill were in some respects more advantageous to the poultry and the stock feeding interests than those in the Act of 1932 it became quite clear during the Committee stage that a feeling did


exist that a requirement of so high a proportion as 50 per cent. dilution for wheat meal might interfere with the feeding practices of some farmers and poultry keepers, and might also operate to the detriment of small country millers.
It was this latter feeling that led Members of all the three parties in the Committee to support an Amendment which was made to Sub-section (5). They supported that Amendment against the advice which I, as Minister in charge of the Bill, felt bound to give them, but I would stress the fact that Members of all three parties did in fact support that Amendment. The Amendment had the effect of extending the definition in the Subsection far beyond the multure custom of Northern Ireland, for which it was intended. I said, and I still maintain, that there is a good deal of doubt whether the 50 per cent. dilution required would have the injurious effect upon stock-feeders and small millers which was expected by some hon. Members.
Nevertheless, I am bound to take note of the wish of the Committee. The voting was 20 to 11 against the Government. I had three courses open to me. One was to disregard entirely the feelings of the Committee and put the original proposal back. Another was to accept the Amendment. The third was to produce another suggestion. I did not feel that I could entirely disregard what the Committee had said, nor did I feel that I could possibly agree to the amended Sub-section because I believe it goes much too far. There are three reasons for that. If the wheat be indeed the property of the farmer and not just wheat grown by him, it would be a simple matter for the farmer to buy wheat, arrange for the miller to grind it and deliver it in the form of wheatmeal. This might well lead to undesirable practices which are not current in the trade to-day, designed to secure the advantages of the amended Sub-section (5). That would mean in turn that any miller who could make direct sales with the farmer could escape altogether the dilution requirement laid down in Sub-sections (2) and (3). Consequently the Sub-section, as amended, will enable the farmers to obtain exemption from quota payments not only for wheatmeal but also for bakers' flour. I do not think that the Mover of the Amendment wanted that to happen.
There is another point. The Wheat Commission have advised me that the Sub-section in its amended form would be unworkable. Except in very small mills it would be impracticable to grind small parcels of wheat separately so as to preserve the identity of the product as the property of the farmer. The proof that the Commission would need in order to satisfy themselves that the conditions had been fulfilled would present a real difficulty. In face of that, the Commission estimate that the extra cost of the audit and the inspection, if the Amendment went through, to say nothing of the cost estimated to arise out of legal disputes, might well be £10,000 a year, which would, of course, have to be met by wheat growers out of their deficiency payments. That is a very considerable sum. In those circumstances I am satisfied that it would be wrong to leave Subsection (5) in its amended form.
I was, therefore, concerned to see that the modifications of the Clause were practical and met the views expressed in the Committee, and the Amendments I have put down are the result of that consideration. I propose in these Amendments that Sub-section (5) should revert to its original form to meet the special case for which it was intended, but there are two substantial modifications which are proposed to help the case of the small miller and farmer. First of all, it is proposed that the maximum wheaten content of wheat provender mixture should be increased to 75 per cent., that is to say that wheatmeal or low-grade flour will need now to be diluted with only one-third of its weight of non-wheaten matter in order to escape the quota payment. I admit that I would prefer that this Clause went back to its original form. I have proposed another Sub-section (7) to provide that quota payment should be made only on the weight of the wheaten content which is in excess of the limits laid down in the Bill. That will be of help to small fanners who might accidentally include a small amount more in the wheat mixtures from which they or the miller might desire to produce some form of wheat provender mixture, including wheatmeal, in the new proportion of 75 per cent. He might accidentally include 78 per cent. of wheatmeal. Under the Bill he would be liable to pay on the whole of the 78 per cent., because of the 3 per cent excess. The new Sub-


section (7) will provide that quota payments shall be made only on that part of the wheaten content which is in excess of three times the weight of the non-wheaten content.
I have to make one point absolutely clear to the House, and it is that the representative organisations of flour millers in this country are not in agreement with the first of the two points which I have mentioned. They strongly maintain that the original requirement of 50 per cent. dilution for wheatmeal and for low-grade flour was not too much, first of all because it would not interfere with the existing feeding practice and secondly because 23 per cent. dilution would not be sufficient to prevent the possibility of the use of the quota-free substances for quota-liable purposes or to offset the effect of the ash-content scale upon the trade in high - grade wheat by - products. I thoroughly recognise the fears which the millers have in this matter, but Clause 10 can operate if it found that the dilution Sub-section which I am proposing would work out wrong and if it was found in fact that everybody was trying to get round the intention of the Clause. We should then use Clause 10 for the protection of the trade as such.
I am very conscious, and I am sure that the House is also, of the difficulty in which I have been placed. I very much regret that it is impossible for me to put before the House proposals which have the complete agreement of all parties. We have been greatly advantaged by the way in which the Wheat Commission has done its work with the co-operation of all concerned. I would infinitely regret if we lost the good will created by that work. But I have taken it to be my duty, in preparing the Amendments to Clause 7, to try to meet as far as possible the views expressed by hon. Members of all parties in that Standing Committee, while preserving a system which does avoid serious risks of abuse and is capable of easy and fair administration.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I fully recognise the extreme difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, who apparently has been trying to reconcile all the views as expressed in one particular vote when the Wheat Bill was passing through the Committee stage. When the Amendment to which he re-

ferred was moved and carried against the Government, certain Members from all parties voted against the Government. It is, of course, a great pleasure for all of us on this side to vote against the Government, and if there were two or three hon. Members who on that occasion, without understanding the depth of what they were doing, made one simple Parliamentary mistake I am not sure that I could not forgive them for having made that mistake in opposing this Government.
But I observe that neither of the hon. Members who, sitting on the benches opposite, moved and seconded the Amendment, is in his place to-night. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture may feel content to this extent, that the one Member looking after the Bill from the Labour party's point of view, when that Amendment was before the Committee, did not vote in favour of the Amendment, and to that extent the official position of the Official Opposition was that we were not in favour of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman must have satisfied the Committee that he was very unhappy with the series of Amendments on the Order Paper. He recognises that they conflict with the feelings of the Wheat Commissioners and with those of the millers, without whose good will this Wheat Act could not have been carried on so smoothly during the past seven or eight years. To move the Amendments in face of those facts is extremely delicate and difficult, and I imagine that the House would not feel like readily accepting the Amendments on the Order Paper. Indeed, I am going to give reasons so substantial that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister may feel disposed not to press the Amendments upon the House.
We on this side agree with the Minister as to the desirability of restoring the three Sub-sections deleted in Committee, for we recognise that the abuses that have taken place have been extremely difficult to trace, and, should the Bill remain in its amended form, abuse of all kinds would take place and no Wheat Commission could keep up with them. There would be more getting deficiency payments or escaping their responsibilities and liabilities, and to the extent that the purchaser of bread would have to pay higher prices. I am sure it is the Minister's desire not only not to create opportunities for abuse but to close the door to abuse as and


when he can. Therefore, I can guarantee that my hon. Friends will support the three paragraphs in the last but two Amendments.
But now I come to the Amendment which appears to be some kind of a compromise—in Clause 7, page 8, line 1, to leave out "one-half" and to insert "three-quarters." That is to repeat an Amendment moved in Committee by an hon. and learned Member who is not now in his place. In a very useful Debate, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions, speaking for the Government, put up such an unanswerable case, that the Amendment was negatived without even a Division. Now for the Minister of Agriculture to move the Amendment that the Minister of Pensions opposed in three columns of the Official Report seems an extraordinary state of affairs. I almost feel that I ought to quote every word in the speech of the Minister of Pensions. Certainly, for reasons that should be known to the Committee, I feel bound to make use of his arguments against the Amendment that is now on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Agriculture and that he fears this House might accept.
The Minister of Pensions said—and all his arguments were equally good:
The object is to prevent low grade flour and wheat meal which can be diverted to human consumption escaping liability to quota payment as destined for livestock unless they are diluted.
I am sure the Minister of Agriculture desires to avoid that kind of thing. The Minister of Pensions went on:
If the need for adulteration is admitted"—
(and I am sure every agricultural representative in the House does agree with the need for dilution)—
then the nearer you get to 100 per cent. wheat meal or flour, the more chance of evasion there will be, and the greater the possibility of disposing of it for human consumption.
He proceeded to say that this figure of 50 per cent. was arrived at after very long discussion with all the interests, the flour millers, corn merchants, pro-vender merchants and so on. What arguments could be advanced in the face of that logic? The Committee saw the logic of the argument of the Minister of Pen-

sions. Now we are called upon to accept the Amendment which the Minister of Pensions argued against so effectively. I merely want to suggest that if these Amendments are admitted—including the one under which the quantities of wheat can be increased from one-half to three-quarters—it will not help the farmers, for as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions himself said in that same notable speech, referring to the quantity of wheat in these mixtures fed to poultry and the rest, the proportion is far more likely to be 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. than the 75 per cent. sought by those who then moved this Amendment. Therefore, said the Minister,50 per cent. would not adversely affect the farmer. It is the sort of thing which the farmers allow for by way of elasticity between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. That was his argument in regard to the proportion. He ended by saying:
It definitely safeguards the Wheat Commission from abuse. I hope for that reason that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment."'—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D), 2nd May, 1939, col. 94.]
I do not want to go into the highways and by-ways of the abuses which have so far been discovered. They are well known by the Wheat Commission and have been brought to the notice of the Ministry of Agriculture from time to time. I am quite sure that the Ministry recognises not only the right proportion of these mixtures, whether fed to poultry or cattle, but also recognises the danger of allowing those who would escape from their liabilities to do so and thereby defeat the legitimate efforts of the Wheat Commission to administer the thing correctly. At this late hour I have many sheaves of arguments I could advance against this series of Amendments, but the arguments of the Minister of Pensions were so effective that I will rely exclusively on the Minister of Pensions against the Minister of Agriculture.
I hope that hon. Members in this House who have the desire to see this Wheat Act continue working smoothly and who want to retain the good will of the millers, who have really been running the Act, and the Wheat Commission who are responsible for its general administration, will see the wisdom of not allowing this apparent concession to a small vested interest who are merely limpets hanging on to the industry of


agriculture and not rendering any very real service to it. I hope the House will sec that the arguments of the Minister of Pensions were effective and unanswerable and that the Minister of Agriculture will, even at this late hour, see the wisdom of restoring the Bill to its original wording and allowing the Wheat Act to continue on its way rejoicing.

12.42 a.m.

Colonel Sir Edward Ruggles-Brise: I feel sure that the whole House will have noticed the extreme frankness with which the Minister of Agriculture laid the whole of the circumstances regarding this Clause before the House. Equally the House will recognise the complete frankness of the hon. Member who has just sat down in regard to the part which his party played in the Standing Committee upstairs. It was not only the Members of the party above the Gangway who undoubtedly cast votes on that particular occasion against the Government under a misapprehension; there were Members of other parties as well, and I think it is true to say that all were acting almost under a complete misconception as to the real issue which was before the Committee at that moment.
In view of these considerations I would like to join, not precisely in the theme which has just fallen from the hon. Member representing the benches above the Gangway, but in suggesting that the Minister of Agriculture might think it well not to press this series of Amendments at this stage, but should take an opportunity of further consultation, in particular with the Wheat Commission, and that it might be possible in that way to find a really satisfactory solution to a very difficult problem, so that the whole matter could be adjusted in another place. I believe that that might be the best course for the House to take at this moment and I commend it to the Minister for consideration.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. Price: As one of those who formed part of the holy alliance of rebels which defeated the Government in Committee upstairs and who are now accused of having brought about an unholy mess, I feel I am entitled to say something about it. I, at least, am one of the few rebels who happen to be here this evening to give an account to the House, although I see present the hon. Member

for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère), who was also one of the rebels. I am not here in sackcloth and ashes because I still consider I was perfectly justified in taking the action I did in Committee. Let me, however, point out that I did not support the dilution of 75 per cent., and for the reason that I did not happen to be there. If 1 had been there I would certainly not have supported the rebels in that proposal. What I did was to support the claim of the small farmers, the poultry farmers and so on, which I thought only reasonable as put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) and another hon. Member, who argued that there was a strong case for these feeders of livestock having the opportunity of getting quota-free wheat which they could buy on the open market or produce themselves, thus using their own wheat and getting it milled at the local millers quota free. Poultry feeders could get it ground locally and feed it to their livestock.
I thought, and I still think, there was a case for that, because there is too big a tendency for small producers of livestock and small feeders to buy ready-made feeding stuffs. There is much to be said for their case because many of the best feeders take the view that they can, by doing their own mixing and using their own wheat and getting it ground locally and mixed in the right proportions, make up just as good feeding meals as those bought ready-made, and also just as cheaply. It is, of course, quite true that the door may be left open here for abuse. I am quite prepared to recognise that, but I thought it was perfectly legitimate to put forward this case in the Committee upstairs, so that the matter could then be reconsidered, and if, in the meantime, it was found that it would be unworkable, we could reconsider the whole thing on the Report stage. I have nothing to regret in that. I think it was perfectly in order and perfectly right that this matter should be discussed in this House.
I do not now under any circumstances at all agree that the Minister should go back on his own arguments and alter his view about this dilution Clause. To my mind it would certainly open the door to more abuse than anything else. He probably has very good reasons, but I regret that it should not be possible for the Minister to accept the right of the small


poultry feeder to buy wheat on the open market and get it milled by local millers. As I read the proposal in this Amendment, it has to be wheat of his own production. I am prepared to accept the point that to do what was suggested in Committee would leave the door open to abuse and that therefore it must be wheat produced on the farm itself and not wheat which is bought in the open market. I hope, therefore, that the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon will be considered by the Minister. I think there is a strong case for postponing the whole thing still further and allowing another place to see whether they cannot thrash it out after still further negotiations with the parties concerned, and bring about a final solution which we can all accept.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. De la Bère: I shall not detain the House unless I am interrupted. I wish to say a few words on the Wheat Commission. The Minister of Agriculture and hon. Members on the opposite side have alluded to the Wheat Commission, and I want to say that I hope that the House will not be guided entirely by what the Wheat Commission want. I am not going to cast any aspersions or make any innuendoes, but it is possible that the Wheat Commission may have been influenced by the big milling combines. The big milling combines have got a definite line to take in these matters and that line may be entirely opposite to the interests—in many cases I am afraid it is so—of the small man. It was the small man whom the Committee upstairs were seeking to uphold when they defeated the Government. The small man is entitled to be upheld. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) talked about some small men or some small vested interests—I am not quite clear which—but it is the small man, the little man, that as hon. Member for Evesham I am out to uphold. I have stayed here for over 10 hours in my endeavour to uphold this small man. I say that if it is not done to-night the thing will be allowed to go by default and the small man will be once again thrown to the wolves and the large combines will be allowed to carry on exactly as they have done in the past. There are times when restraint is not a very great virtue. I believe that if the

Wheat Commission have their way they will play the racket of the milling combines, which no right-minded person would wish to see continued.

12.52 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I was one of those who opposed the Government on this matter in Committee upstairs. I was determined to listen to the arguments before I made up my mind as to the right attitude to take up, as I represent one of the largest grain-growing constituencies in the country. What we have to be certain of is that the Bill is so drafted that evasions are practically impossible. I must say I was very much impressed by the arguments put forward. As has been stated, what we wanted to do upstairs was to protect the small farmer and the grist miller. I am afraid that has not been done by these Amendments. I would ask the Minister, does he think that the grist miller is a very important man? The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) does not think so, because he talked of him as being a limpet. I think he said he was a drag on the wheels of other business. I notice beside him the right hon. Member for Hills-borough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) and I hope the right hon. Gentleman has not been prompting him, because I understand that the Co-operatives are very large millers in their own way.

Mr. Alexander: And very good millers.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I thought I should get the right hon. Gentleman to speak because he has been behind the change of front in the Opposition.

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. and gallant Member must have misunderstood me. I made no reflection upon the small farmers. Rather, if I did reflect at all, it was upon a new organisation which has come into existence more or less since the commencement of the Wheat Act in 1932, the National Association of Agricultural Merchants. I said that they were rather like limpets, and, apparently unlike all the other interests, they are the one exception.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: All this gives very little protection to the small farmer. That is what we object to. We are faced with the difficulty that our Amendment widens the door apparently too much to some form of evasion, and the Minister's very honest attempts are not satisfactory.


I think the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman beside me is the only one, and that the matter should be withdrawn. I am very sorry. I am not satisfied, I still feel that justice has not been done, and I hope very much that it will be possible in another place, with consultations not only with the large millers but with the small farmer, to get Amendments which will meet the case.

12.56 a.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: I agree with the point of view of the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère). I do feel that the net effect of this Bill—I say this in the presence of the right hon. Member for Hills-borough (Mr. Alexander)—will be to play into the hands of the big firms. The wheat industry of this country has gone its way. Despite attempts of this association to get brokerage on the transactions involved, the big firms are being encouraged. From the point of view of the agriculturist I do not want any illusions to exist as to the effect of this Bill. I am not saying that the co-operative movement millers are necessarily wrong in utilising this kind of machinery, but for hon. Members on the other side to get away with the idea that in supporting this Bill they are really supporting the agricultural interests is wrong. They are supporting the interests of the big business interests of this country, whether that is good or bad. Having given them the grain trade, you are now about to give them the provender trade and the feeding-stuffs generally. That may be good or bad, but it is the fact. This Bill has that main defect.
Another characteristic of this Bill is that it has grown up to deal with the possibilities of fraud. This scheme generally is so liable to fraudulent evasions that you have to bring in a main Bill, the only substantial Clause being Clause 1 and the rest being provisions to stop people doing the wrong thing. Therefore this is not good legislation from the agricultural point of view, and nobody can go down to the country and congratulate himself on this Measure. It is a Bill that will have the main effect of supporting the big business interests of this country, and that is the attitude adopted generally by the other side. From the agricultural point of view it is a bad Bill.

12.58 a.m.

Sir T. Moore: I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan). I think that the whole House must have a great deal of sympathy with my right hon. Friend in the very difficult position he has been put in, and I do hope he will see his way not to press this series of Amendments. He is departing from an agreed and established principle on the fifty-fifty basis, and thereafter he is trying to safeguard the position which he is now creating by a lot of elaborate and cumbersome Amendments. I ask that he should read for himself Clause 7, which it would need a mathematical genius to understand. I cannot imagine any poor farmer or miller having the mental capacity to see what it means. I will only add that I have been approached by one of those small men to whom reference has been made to-night. He has asked me to put forward the view of the small man and to try to persuade Members and the Minister that if the principle was right in Committee that it cannot be wrong now. Therefore I ask the Minister to consult again with the Wheat Commission, the National Farmers' Unions of England and Scotland and with the Millers' Association.

Mr. Acland: I hope the Minister will withdraw this Amendment. I wonder whether the House realises how lucky the Government are that at the other end of the passage there is another place which can clear up matters for them.

1.3 a.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: When I first brought in this Bill on Second Reading I said that I thought it would give some people headaches, and the House will have recognised my difficulties in producing this Amendment. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has really quite reconvinced me by his reference to the speech of the Minister of Pensions, but unfortunately the Committee at that time did not see the logic of that particular speech and the result was that the door of evasion was opened wider than it was in the first place. If the hon. Member for Don Valley quotes the speech of the Minister of Pensions against me I might quote one or two passages out of his speech which might not go down with the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander).


I myself am not at all convinced by the argument of those who say that the Bill, with the Amendment, will help the little man. I believe that he is assured more if this scheme should work smoothly and properly, and, I again repeat, the value I place on smooth working which we have got by the good will of all concerned. I am therefore inclined to accept the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) that the matter be considered in another place. I think it would be better to allow the Wheat Commission to consider the matter again, and to see whether we cannot get agreement; and then we can consider anything which they may do in another place.

1.6 a.m.

Mr. Alexander: I think what the Minister has just said will meet with general acceptance. I may say that the millers themselves never asked for the original subsidy Act but they have loyally administered the scheme for seven years with very great success for the fanners, and from the point of view of the millers the number of working millers registered under the scheme has increased, and so far from putting millers out of business it has had the opposite effect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 7, line 41, leave out "that satisfies the following condition," and insert:

"as to which the following condition is fulfilled."

In page 8, line 23, leave out "that satisfies the following conditions," and insert:

"as to which the following conditions are fulfilled."

In line 40, leave out "satisfied," and insert "fulfilled."

In line 42, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b), and insert:

(a) that the destination of the substance was for livestock of a person by whom the whole of the wheat from which the wheaten content of the substance is derived was grown;
(b)that no deficiency payments have or will become payable in respect of that wheat; and
(c)that the substance is not as to any part of its wheaten content derived from a milling the abject of which was a separation between husk and kernel, that is to say, between parts of wheat having different ash contents."—(Sir R. Dorman-Smith.)

CLAUSE II.—(Quota payments in respect of certain cereal breakfast foods.)

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, in page 14, line 30, to leave out from" the "to the end of line 31, and to insert" thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty."
This is in accordance with an undertaking already given.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Power to impose quota payments in respect of imported goods having wheaten content.)

1.10 a.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Rams botham): I beg to move, in page 17, line 2, to leave out "Commissioners," and to insert "Commission or."

This Amendment corrects a misprint.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 30.—(Interpretation.)

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, in page 36, line 7, after "ash," to insert "derived from the wheaten content of the substance."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Consequential)

Amendments of principal Ad.) Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, in page 41, to leave out lines 35 and 36.

This is a drafting Amendment:

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

1.12 a.m.

Mr. De la Bère: I feel that this procedure to-night is the most futile, fantastic and fatuous happening that has ever occurred in the House of Commons. That it could not have been arranged and seen to before is no credit to the House of Commons and no help to the agricultural community.

Mr. T. Williams: There is only one observation I want to make. While the proceedings to-night may have appeared unseemly I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture has done himself real credit by his response to the general request from all


parts of the House. I hope he will look back upon this day not as one where he was weak but as one where he exercised strength, and I think the Wheat Commission will thank him.

Orders of the Day — AIR MINISTRY (HESTON AND KENLEY AERODROMES EXTENSION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

1.14 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
At this late hour I do not wish to detain the House long, but I think the House would wish for a brief explanation of what this Bill proposes to do. The purpose of the Bill is to provide the extensions to the Royal Air Force aerodrome at Kenley and to the civil airport at Heston. The need has arisen largely from the requirements of present-day and future aircraft in regard to airports. High-powered and high-speed aircraft and the use of navigational aids necessitate longer runways than those of the present size, built when the aerodromes were constructed. In a Measure such as this various interests of local authorities, corporate bodies, and individuals are affected, and if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading we propose to move that it go to a Select Committee, where all those affected will have ample opportunity to have their rights safeguarded and interests represented in the usual and approved manner.
As regards Kenley it is intended to extend the aerodrome and this will involve the stopping up of two roads and the construction by the Air Ministry of a road in their place. The position is somewhat complicated because of the conditions under which the land of the present aerodrome was acquired. The Air Ministry (Kenley Commons Acquisition) Act, 1922, sanctioned the purchase of land forming part of Kenley Common and held by the City of London under the Corporation of London Open Spaces Act of 1878. This provided that the Air Ministry should not stop up a particular lane or a road called "Hayes Lane" but this will now have to take place and therefore a new

agreement with the corporation is necessary and is attached to the Schedule. The Schedule provides that if land at any time is not required in the future, the corporation have the option to purchase the whole site, and if this happened the land would continue to be held by the corporation under the Corporation of London Open Spaces Act, 1878.
The Bill preserves the right which has been enjoyed by the public to have access to the Air Ministry site, subject to the necessary regulations, and this applies to the whole of the new aerodrome. Roadways are to be constructed to the satisfaction of the highway authority, and the Secretary of State has agreed with local authorities—although this is not actually in the Bill—that the means of access shall not be affected as regards any residents around the aerodrome, in that the roads will not be stopped up until the new road is constructed. The total cost of carrying out the work with regard to Kenley should not be more than £15,000.
I now pass to Heston, the second airport. This airport was acquired by the Air Ministry in September, 1937. It is at present operated and managed by the original owners, Air Work, Limited, but the agreement expires in September, after which the management will be carried out by my Department. The future of civil aviation requires a ring of terminal airports in which Heston is designed to play a leading part as one of the chief airports. The House was informed on the Air Estimates of the new types of civil aircraft being ordered with Government support, and while these are air liners of great technical advance, nevertheless they unfortunately need two thousand yard runways if the facilities are to be considered safe and adequate. Therefore we wish to get the airport ready for the new air liners which should become available in 1941.
I am sure the House will appreciate that we are working to a close time-table with regard to getting the necessary facilities available by the time they are ready for service. As in the case of Kenley, certain roads have to be closed and two new roads are being constructed in their place. The new roads are being constructed by the Middlesex County Council on behalf of the Air Ministry, which is paying for the initial cost, including land. All local authorities or any other individuals will have oppor-


tunities of making representations before the Select Committee.
I would point out that the Bill is not really necessary for the purpose of acquiring land for Heston because it could be acquired under the Military Lands Act of 1892. This was extended to cover the acquisition of land for civil aerodromes by the Air Navigation Act of 1920. The reason for the illogicality in applying to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the rights which he already enjoys is because the Military Lands Act involves a long procedure of a Provisional Order, and one Bill, and a second Bill would be necessary for stopping up these roads. The local town-planning authority has agreed with the proposals contained in the Bill. I would like to tell the House of one difficulty which we have been facing, although I am hoping that reasonable arrangements for all parties concerned may be arrived at. The difficulty is as regards the tenants who are being displaced by the demolition of certain properties necessary for the enlargement of the aerodrome. These come under two categories. The first lot do not, strictly speaking, come within the terms of the Bill, because they are affected by property which we have purchased by agreement for demolition, and of which we require -early possession in order that the aerodrome work may proceed. The second lot are affected by properties which are being acquired compulsorily under the Bill.
The extent of the problem under the Bill is 24 working-class tenants to be displaced, and in addition 80 or 90 will be affected by the voluntary purchases which we have made under agreement with owners of property. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Air, is anxious that there shall be no undue hardship on tenants. Consequently I discussed with the representative of the local authority the present condition of housing accommodation in the district. The position is such that special measures will have to be taken to provide alternative accommodation for dispossessed tenants, and we intend to keep in close touch with the local authority and consult them with regard to finding ways and means of satisfactorily solving this problem. I cannot say how many of the 24 tenants mentioned will need special treatment. Dispossessed

tenants will have all reasonable claims for compensation attended to by my Department. As regards ways and means for tenants who are unable to make their own arrangements for accommodation, no conclusion has been reached, but I should like to repeat that my right hon. Friend is anxious that no undue hardship shall be entailed, and the responsibility of my Department will be fully discharged. I trust after the explanation I have given the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill and so enable very necessary enlargements in the advancement of military and civil aviation.

1.24 a.m.

Mr. Montague: At this time of night it is undesirable to go into all the details of this Measure. The Bill is going to a Select Committee and that will give an opportunity of examining the details thoroughly. We on this side certainly intend to apply a very thorough examination in due course. On the principle the House, I imagine, is unanimous. We all understand that with the increased tonnage and size of aeroplanes and the developing requirements of civil and military aviation this problem of the extension of aerodromes applies not only to the two present cases but to nearly every aerodrome in the country, and I hope that the Government will apply their minds to the future of aviation in regard to the value and acquisition of land and so forth.
The Bill is divided into two parts, one of which confirms an arrangement made with the City of London Corporation in respect of one of the commons. The Labour Party is associated, so far as Greater London is concerned, with the responsibility for the Green Belt, and we are very much concerned about this chopping, changing and swapping of land, which, after all, is common land and represents amenities which we desire should be enjoyed by the people of Greater London. Those who know Epping Forest, which is also under the Corporation of the City of London, will know how precedents have been established in the past by encroaching upon -land which should have been for all time the common property of the people of London and the surrounding counties. It is all very well to say, in respect of Coulsdon Common, that there are to be alternative roads. We shall desire to know exactly what that means, because there is not only the


question of the best alternative roads but the question of general amenities.
We are even more concerned about Heston, because I see from the second Schedule that there are no fewer than nine roads and footpaths which are to be stopped up. Two alternative roads are to be made. There again the question of general amenities needs to be examined. We note the anxiety of the Minister that everyone shall be given a fair deal in regard to compensation. Compensation is to be paid according to the provisions of the Lands Consolidation Act. That is all very well, but does that compensation cover all the possible injury and the interests of everyone concerned? The Minister has mentioned the displacement of working-class. tenants. His anxiety is all very well. We shall want more than just an expression of anxiety. We shall want to know whether adequate alternative accommodation will be provided before anything is done. That should be insisted upon.
There are also questions relating to businesses. I imagine there are some small businesses that will be affected. There may be allotments and questions of that kind. I hope that when the Bill gets to a Committee the Minister in charge will be able to satisfy us upon the question of fair treatment not only for those who own the property at Heston and Kenley, but also the general public and the people who are to be displaced from their homes and possibly from their modes of living. With regard to the general principle, we are as much concerned in the future of aviation as the Under-Secretary of State, but we are also concerned in these questions and I hope we shall have them adequately dealt with in due course.

1.29 a.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I certainly agree that this Bill will require detailed examination before it goes to another place. With modern aeroplanes coming in, many of the aerodromes that were arranged to deal with older types of machines will have to be extended. After all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and on the committee on which I was appointed we had to consider the question of Croydon Aerodrome and the people who lived round about. We had a great deal of evidence brought that the value of land and houses had become

absolutely nil because the land was required for an aerodrome. They gave staggering figures which they said represented money invested in the building of houses, and how, because of an aerodrome nearby, these houses were worth nothing and the rateable value had gone down.
Now that the Air Ministry are going to take more land, rather high figures are going to appear and no doubt very many claims are going to be put in as to the value of the land to be taken. I hope the Ministry will pay great attention to the report presented to them and to the view of those people who brought to us very convincing evidence that when there was an aerodrome near there was absolutely no value in the land at all. After all, this is the State's money and the taxpayers' money, and if that argument is to be used in one way, it must also be taken into consideration when you are out to buy this land. I press this point. I hope that every consideration will be given to the taxpayers' point of view.

1.31 a.m.

Mr. Rathbone: There is only one very small point I think should be put. In the original Bill there is a Schedule which, I cannot help saying, is an extraordinarily artistic piece of work and full of every kind of description of colours and so on, according to certain deposited plans. I have searched the Library and the Vote Office and the Tea Room for those deposited plans and can find no sign of them.

Captain Balfour: May I suggest that perhaps if the hon. Member renews his search he will find a copy of both the Heston and Kenley plans in the Library.

Mr. Keeling: As I have the honour to represent Heston in this House I would like to support the plea of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) that the claims of residents who are going to be ejected through the enlargement of the Heston Airport should be carefully considered. I understand from the Town Clerk of Heston and Isleworth that he is quite satisfied with his interview yesterday with my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State, when a promise was given to that effect. What results from that promise is of course a matter for consideration later.

1.33 a.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to ask one or two questions about the Kenley and Coulsdon Commons. I am bound to say that the history of Kenley Common since the War, and its relationship to various Government Departments, is not such as to give one very much ground for confidence with regard to its future. These were commons around London that were saved by the energy of the City Corporation in the 'sixties and 'seventies of the last century, when the Lord of the Manor, who is mentioned in this agreement, did his very utmost to prevent the public access to them. The Under-Secretary has said that people would have rights of access to the aerodromes. I do not quite understand what that means, because clearly these commons at the present time are some of the best roaming spaces around London, over which people have secured, through the activity of the City Corporation, the right to wander in every direction without let or hindrance, whereas now public access must be severely circumscribed.
I believe it is usual, when land is taken for any purpose of this kind, that land in substitution for that enclosed shall be thrown into the common and shall be subject to all the rights of access to the land which is being taken away. I find nothing in this agreement—except for a somewhat obscurely-worded paragraph at the bottom of page 8 of the Bill-—which indicates that any land is being thrown into the commons in substitution for the land that is being taken. I share the view of the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Rathbone) that this is an important matter, because this Bill is the first, undoubtedly, of a series of Bills that will have to be passed with regard to the provision of aerodromes in the country in view of the expansion of the Air Force and the greater size and speed of aircraft now using them. It is, therefore, essential in the public interest that this old-established principle, in regard to the utilisation of land, should not be departed from in this first Bill.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to clarify this very wordy agreement, which it is quite impossible to follow without having plans in front of one and without knowing which is now common land and which is not. Could

the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that no interference with common land and right of access to the great recreation grounds established by the City Corporation will take place without adequate compensation being made by the Air Ministry for the land that is taken or interfered with? I am bound to say that I regard that as being very important in the near neighbourhood of London. I know for a positive fact that in 1921 and 1922 when the last agreement was entered into with the City Corporation there was a very strong feeling in the Kenley district that certain promises which had been made during the War were not fulfilled in the final arrangements made, and I am quite sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would desire that no feeling of that kind should arise in connection with the present arrangements.

1.38 a.m.

Captain Balfour: It is only by the leave of the House that I can reply to the questions which have been raised. I think the fears of the last speaker were not well-founded because the Air Ministry has come to an agreement with the City Corporation in regard to these open spaces. As regards the exchange of land, I will not go into the details, which can be seen on the plan, and the merits of such exchanges can be thrashed out in the Select Committee. I need only add that paragraph 4 of the Schedule will show the hon. Member that the rights at present enjoyed by the public in the case of aerodrome sites are preserved and this applies to the whole of the new aerodromes.

Mr. Montague: What do those words mean?

Captain Balfour: Such rights as the public can enjoy of access to common land, subject to the necessary Regulations as regards the safety of the public when walking across the aerodromes, are preserved in respect of the enlarged aerodromes. These are matters of great importance, but they are matters which are more particularly applicable to the Select Committee stage, when the various bodies and individuals can make their own representations.

1.39 a.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I would not have intervened but for the speech made by


an hon. Member opposite. This aerodrome is not very far from my own constituency. A considerable number of my constituents are in business in Croydon and live in the Kenley district, and all I can say is that I have not received a single communication from one of them. Therefore I think we are reasonably entitled to assume that they take no particular exception.

Mr. Montague: There is just one other question. Is anything being done in connection with the extension of Heston aerodrome as regards the gasometer there? It is a very big problem.

Captain Balfour: That raises an entirely different question.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, presented at any time not later than live clear days after the Second Reading of the Bill, be referred to the Committee.

Ordered, That Petitions against the Bill may be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, provided that such Petitions shall have been prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House relating to Petitions against Private Bills.

Ordered, That the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel or Agents heard in support of the Bill.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum. —[Captain Balfour.]

Orders of the Day — AIR MINISTRY (HESTON AND KENLEY AERODROMES EXTENSION) [Money].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the acquisition by the Secretary of State for Air of certain land in Middlesex, and for the stopping up of certain highways in Middlesex and Surrey, and to confirm an agreement between the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London and the Secretary of State for Air relating to the extension of the site of Kenley Aerodrome, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Secretary of State for Air under the said Act and the said agreement."—(King's Recommendation signified.) — [Captain Balfour.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.

1.42 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) (Amendment) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
Briefly, the purpose of this Order is to extend for a further five months the period during which goods imported from Burma will be exempted from the application of the Import Duties Act, 1932, to allow time for a trade agreement to be completed between the United Kingdom and Burma and put into effect. Section 5 of the Import Duties Act of 1932 exempted from duty goods from Empire countries other than the Dominions, India and Southern Rhodesia. At that time Burma was part of India. Section 4 of the Import Duties Act exempted from duty goods from the Dominions, India and Southern Rhodesia, but the exemptions were due to expire on 15th November, 1932. That is to say, in default of other arrangements, goods from the Dominions, India and Southern Rhodesia would become subject to duty. That of course included goods from Burma.
In the autumn of 1932 the Ottawa Agreements Act was passed, and Sec-


tion2, Sub-section (I), of that Act excluded from the operation of the Import Duties Act goods from all countries having agreements mentioned in the Schedule to that Act. That is to say, it substituted for the duties of the Import Duties Act the duties contained in the several agreements arrived at at Ottawa. Still, of course, Burma was part of India. In 1937 Burma became separated from India and the effect was that Burma came under Section 5 of the Import Duties Act. That is to say, that Section which was related to imports from the Empire countries other than the Dominions, India, or Southern Rhodesia. The status of Burma with a new Constitution was such as not to make it desirable that it permanently should remain in that category, and it was intended that Burma should come eventually under Section 4 of the Import Duties Act. The point was, however, that the exemptions accorded under Section 4 of the Import Duties Act had, as I have just said, expired on 15th November, 1932, and Burma, in this particular instance, had had no separate agreement under the Ottawa Agreements Acts. Although coming under Section 4 would give her a certain status, it would in point of fact provide no exemption for her goods from the full application of the Import Duties Act ditties. Therefore it was not desirable that Burma should come under Section 4 of the Import Duties Act until she had negotiated a trade agreement of her own.
By the Adaptation of Acts of Parliament Order, 1937, Burma was to come under Section 4 in respect of all goods imported after 31st March, 1938. That, by inference, implied that there was a hope at that time that a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and Burma would by then have been arrived at. However, by that date, no trade agreement had been arrived at and so subsequently that date, 31st March, 1938, was extended first to 30th November, 1938, and then to 30th June, 1939. We now under this Order ask that the date should be still further extended to 30th November. It may be asked why there has been no trade agreement up to now between the United Kingdom and Burma and why such an agreement has not been arrived at. The conclusion of such an agreement has been necessarily dependent on the progress of the trade negotiations between the United Kingdom

and India. Burma and India have been closely tied together as regards tariffs by the trade agreement between India and Burma. Those countries under that agreement have mutual free trade, and, generally speaking, have a common customs tariff. It has not, therefore, really been practical for Burma and the United Kingdom to agree to a trade agreement until a new trade agreement has been arrived at between India and the United Kingdom, so that the question whether Burma should adopt similar tariffs to those in India under the new trade agreement could be studied. Now that a new agreement between India and the United Kingdom has been arrived at it is hoped that active negotiations for an agreement between the United Kingdom and Burma will very shortly be resumed and I hope by the new date included in this Order it will be possible to have completed the trade agreement between the United Kingdom and Burma and to have effected the necessary legislation. I think it only fair, however, to give due warning that for the full arrangements for the working of such an agreement to come into operation it may be necessary to ask for some further extension.

1.52 a.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I make no comment on the fact that a matter of this importance is taken in the middle of the night. The Under-Secretary of State said quite clearly that the Burma and India agreements come together. The India agreement, which he calls an agreement, was one certified by the Viceroy, and I cannot help making the comment that ever since the time of Mr. Montagu it has been a fixed rule that the Indian tariff should be fixed by India and not by parties in this country. This is the first time that a tariff has been fixed by certification, and I do not know what Mr. Baldwin or any other of the Conservative Prime Ministers who have loyally observed this rule would have said had they known that new Indian tariffs were to be fixed on these circumstances. Is it intended to arrive at an arrangement with the Legislative Assembly in Burma or is it intended to adopt the same methods as those adopted in India? If the tariffs of India are to be fixed by order of the India Office, then the hope of India to achieve an autonomous status is very seriously postponed. Will an attempt be


made in this new tariff agreement with Burma to do it by agreement with the elected representatives of the Burmese people?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The right hon. Gentleman is asking rather a hypothetical question as to what action may be taken if certain things eventuate in connection with a possible United Kingdom-Burma agreement. In point of fact, I may remind him that the new Constitution of Burma differs in important respects from that still enjoyed by India at the Centre and does not provide for certification.

Mr. Benn: So that if the Assembly does not agree he will have to impose the old duties on Burma imports into this country and go without an agreement?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Those things are hypothetical. I cannot be expected to say what procedure would be followed in some months' time when an agreement may have been arrived at.

Ordered, That the Debate be now adjourned—[Captain Margesson.]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Two Minutes before Two o'Clock.